{"id":4463,"date":"2020-07-20T19:36:18","date_gmt":"2020-07-20T17:36:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/?p=4463"},"modified":"2020-10-14T22:03:57","modified_gmt":"2020-10-14T20:03:57","slug":"has-the-left-been-gulled-into-believing-its-small-right-to-speech-is-already-too-much","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.jonathan-cook.net\/blog\/2020-07-20\/has-the-left-been-gulled-into-believing-its-small-right-to-speech-is-already-too-much\/","title":{"rendered":"Has the left been gulled into believing its small right to speech is already too much?"},"content":{"rendered":"

My post earlier this month on the so-called \u201ccancel culture\u201d letter<\/a> proved to be the most polarising I have written \u2013 matched only by another recent post on the pulling down of a statue<\/a> in the UK to a slave trader. The ferocity of the reactions to both, I believe, is related. It derives from a similar refusal, even on the left, to factor in power \u2013 and how it is best confronted \u2013 when assessing issues of speech and oppression.<\/p>\n

But first, I want to briefly address the concerns of those who think that \u00a0the focus by me and others on the open letter, published<\/a> this month in Harper’s magazine and signed by 150 prominent writers and thinkers, has been excessive. They argue that there are more important things going on in the world that need highlighting instead.<\/p>\n

The discussion on the left about the letter is not simple navel-gazing. Speech rights and how they are exercised are the arena in which our thoughts, narratives and ideologies are shaped. Nothing is more important than how we talk to each other, and what we are allowed to say and think. That is why I am revisiting the issue.<\/p>\n

The illiberal climate identified in the letter is a real thing, but the discussion promoted by the letter has been ahistorical, lacked proper political context, and the purpose it is being put to, in my view, is dangerously antithetical to improved free speech. The problem with the letter is not what it says \u2013 which few of us would disagree with \u2013 but what it doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

Refusal to sign<\/h3>\n

What is missing is highlighted by two insights into the letter\u2019s provenance that have emerged since I wrote my post. They help to shed light on my original concerns.<\/p>\n

In a column<\/a> on the letter in the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg, one of the more progressive voices among the signatories, reported that she refused to sign the initial draft because it was explicitly about the threat to free speech posed by \u201ccancel culture\u201d.<\/p>\n

Goldberg was rightly wary of adding her name because \u201ccancel culture\u201d, as I explained in my first post, is a term that has been increasingly appropriated by the right to attack the speech rights of the left. It is meant to skew public discourse in the same way as \u201cfake news\u201d, \u201cBernie Bros\u201d, \u201cantisemitism\u201d and \u201cRussian trolls\u201d. Like cancel culture, these things exist but they have been malevolently repurposed by the right as a stick with which to beat the left. Donald Trump recently equated<\/a> \u201ccancel culture\u201d with \u201cfar-left fascism\u201d, for example.<\/p>\n

After her initial reluctance, Goldberg signed a second draft chiefly, it seems, because the phrase \u201ccancel culture\u201d was removed \u2013 even though the letter’s original intent remained unaltered. Those sentiments were so obvious that observers immediately dubbed it the \u201ccancel culture letter\u201d. That was also, of course, the reason why a bunch of warmongers, Israel fanatics and left-baiters were so eager to sign the letter.<\/p>\n

Greenwald ‘cancelled’<\/h3>\n

A second insight came from Thomas Chatterton Williams, one of the main drafters of the letter. In an interview last week, he revealed that the original intention was to have it signed by Glenn Greenwald, the civil rights lawyer turned journalist who is a well-known champion of free speech. Ultimately, however, Greenwald was not approached because others behind the letter objected. In short, and paradoxically, free speech advocate Greenwald was cancelled from signing a letter about the threat posed by cancel culture.<\/p>\n

\n

HAHAHAHAHAHA here's thomas chatterton williams, the main drafter of the harper's letter, saying he didn't have glenn greenwald sign it because he was "outvoted on that". HAHAHAHA they "cancelled" glenn in the anti-"cancel culture" letter. LMAO you really can't make this shit up pic.twitter.com\/bYr5oRKlwC<\/a><\/p>\n

— \u2600\ufe0f\ud83d\udc40 (@zei_squirrel) July 18, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n