When we're talking about someone other than the government, the answer to "who decides which speech will be restricted?" isn't complicated. It's the person who owns the venue. To tell someone that they shouldn't manage what people do and say in their establishment is bizarre.
If a cafe owner doesn't want to hear politics in their place, that's up to them. It's not their job to stop and think "Oh my, what if the place across town forbids it too? Where will the poor political coffee drinkers go?" They own the place. It's their call.
What's a more likely scenario, though? Why would a cafe owner forbid a type of speech in their place? Because it was disruptive. Because it made some of his customers uncomfortable or hampered his business. Maybe it got too loud. Maybe someone said "I wish they wouldn't serve those people" when one of those people was ordering a drink.
Is the cafe owner "chasing hate away to hide in the dark" when they boot that person? Or trying to run a safe, welcoming, and pleasant business for their customers? What if the offender is begging for money? Is it okay to kick them out because it's not political speech?
Is it their job to confront intolerance? How does that work? Instead of booting the person say "Don't say that! That's not nice!" and then serve them another cup of coffee the next day so they can do it again?
It's entirely up to Substack to decide what speech they want to allow or disallow. It's their right to have the weak and self-contradictory policies they've chosen. Just like it's okay for Substackers (and ex-Substackers) to say they don't want to hang out in a cafe that serves Nazis.
The Internet isn't a book. Books can't follow you. Books can't figure out where you live. Books can't make it impossible for you to read your timeline because they stuff it with racial/sexual/religious slurs. Books can't slide into your DMs.
The Internet is a cafe. It's a shopping mall. It's a series of interconnected public squares. And unlike the physical world, we can have s many public squares as we want. Telling people that they're wrong to curate what is and isn't said in their square because they're failing some intellectual test is, at best, specious.
Hi Eric--thanks for reading my whole article, and for responding. It's important for other viewpoints to be part of this conversation. I knew as I was coming to these conclusions over the past few weeks that not everyone was going to agree. One element I'm taking away from Mill is to keep in mind that I might be wrong.
A few thoughts prompted by your reply:
- I acknowledge near the top that businesses don't have to follow the First Amendment, but my article is an appeal to do so out of respect for the principles it enshrines. I know American society will never do this 100%, but reading "On Liberty" has convinced me the closer we get to that ideal, the better our society will be.
- When I imply it would be better if coffee shops don't forbid discussion of politics and religion, I'm entertaining a thought experiment where forbidding these topics becomes the prevailing prejudice of society. By definition, this would be the prejudice of the majority. It's meant to demonstrate Mill's point that society can be just as oppressive through custom as government can be through laws. This doesn't make it right.
- Here I'm talking about forbidding any and all discussion, regardless of how civil it may be. I'm not suggesting proprietors should allow disruptions on their premises as civic duty.
- In the real world, most coffee shops aren't going to outright forbid discussions of these two topics. But if they did it would make me sad, because it would be counter to the spirit of a free society.
- Coffee shops that want to do this certainly have the right, barring some Supreme Court ruling based on the "equal access" provision in federal law. Someone could probably sue if a coffee shop banned discussion of a specific religion, and maybe if they banned all discussion of religion. Probably not if they banned discussion of politics. It's not a protected category.
- My reasoning here is based not only on Mill's reasoning regarding the "tyranny of the majority," but also on his declaration that when we prevent someone from making an argument--even one with which we disagree--we are harmed in addition to the other person. They are harmed because they are prevented from speaking. We're harmed because we miss hearing their argument. Many arguments contain a grain of truth. Even those which are completely erroneous are beneficial to us, because they reinforce that what we believe to be true really is true.
- Prior to 2016, I really did believe we had made good progress over the past forty years in reducing racism in this country. Now I think we just did a good job of driving it underground, where it festered, then broke out with renewed vigor given the chance.
- In disturbing ways, this parallels Arendt's argument about how isolating a segment of the population from the mainstream of the society lays the groundwork for totalitarianism. This worries me. A lot.
- Taken together, Mill and Arendt seem to be saying that the more we keep people engaged, even if their views are abhorrent to us, the more we can keep society functioning as a stable democracy.
- Given the fallout from 2016-2020, I'm advocating giving it a try.
- Not everyone will agree with me. I'm not trying to shame them for "leaving the cafe." I'm just putting the view out there for consideration.
When we're talking about someone other than the government, the answer to "who decides which speech will be restricted?" isn't complicated. It's the person who owns the venue. To tell someone that they shouldn't manage what people do and say in their establishment is bizarre.
If a cafe owner doesn't want to hear politics in their place, that's up to them. It's not their job to stop and think "Oh my, what if the place across town forbids it too? Where will the poor political coffee drinkers go?" They own the place. It's their call.
What's a more likely scenario, though? Why would a cafe owner forbid a type of speech in their place? Because it was disruptive. Because it made some of his customers uncomfortable or hampered his business. Maybe it got too loud. Maybe someone said "I wish they wouldn't serve those people" when one of those people was ordering a drink.
Is the cafe owner "chasing hate away to hide in the dark" when they boot that person? Or trying to run a safe, welcoming, and pleasant business for their customers? What if the offender is begging for money? Is it okay to kick them out because it's not political speech?
Is it their job to confront intolerance? How does that work? Instead of booting the person say "Don't say that! That's not nice!" and then serve them another cup of coffee the next day so they can do it again?
It's entirely up to Substack to decide what speech they want to allow or disallow. It's their right to have the weak and self-contradictory policies they've chosen. Just like it's okay for Substackers (and ex-Substackers) to say they don't want to hang out in a cafe that serves Nazis.
The Internet isn't a book. Books can't follow you. Books can't figure out where you live. Books can't make it impossible for you to read your timeline because they stuff it with racial/sexual/religious slurs. Books can't slide into your DMs.
The Internet is a cafe. It's a shopping mall. It's a series of interconnected public squares. And unlike the physical world, we can have s many public squares as we want. Telling people that they're wrong to curate what is and isn't said in their square because they're failing some intellectual test is, at best, specious.
Hi Eric--thanks for reading my whole article, and for responding. It's important for other viewpoints to be part of this conversation. I knew as I was coming to these conclusions over the past few weeks that not everyone was going to agree. One element I'm taking away from Mill is to keep in mind that I might be wrong.
A few thoughts prompted by your reply:
- I acknowledge near the top that businesses don't have to follow the First Amendment, but my article is an appeal to do so out of respect for the principles it enshrines. I know American society will never do this 100%, but reading "On Liberty" has convinced me the closer we get to that ideal, the better our society will be.
- When I imply it would be better if coffee shops don't forbid discussion of politics and religion, I'm entertaining a thought experiment where forbidding these topics becomes the prevailing prejudice of society. By definition, this would be the prejudice of the majority. It's meant to demonstrate Mill's point that society can be just as oppressive through custom as government can be through laws. This doesn't make it right.
- Here I'm talking about forbidding any and all discussion, regardless of how civil it may be. I'm not suggesting proprietors should allow disruptions on their premises as civic duty.
- In the real world, most coffee shops aren't going to outright forbid discussions of these two topics. But if they did it would make me sad, because it would be counter to the spirit of a free society.
- Coffee shops that want to do this certainly have the right, barring some Supreme Court ruling based on the "equal access" provision in federal law. Someone could probably sue if a coffee shop banned discussion of a specific religion, and maybe if they banned all discussion of religion. Probably not if they banned discussion of politics. It's not a protected category.
- My reasoning here is based not only on Mill's reasoning regarding the "tyranny of the majority," but also on his declaration that when we prevent someone from making an argument--even one with which we disagree--we are harmed in addition to the other person. They are harmed because they are prevented from speaking. We're harmed because we miss hearing their argument. Many arguments contain a grain of truth. Even those which are completely erroneous are beneficial to us, because they reinforce that what we believe to be true really is true.
- Prior to 2016, I really did believe we had made good progress over the past forty years in reducing racism in this country. Now I think we just did a good job of driving it underground, where it festered, then broke out with renewed vigor given the chance.
- In disturbing ways, this parallels Arendt's argument about how isolating a segment of the population from the mainstream of the society lays the groundwork for totalitarianism. This worries me. A lot.
- Taken together, Mill and Arendt seem to be saying that the more we keep people engaged, even if their views are abhorrent to us, the more we can keep society functioning as a stable democracy.
- Given the fallout from 2016-2020, I'm advocating giving it a try.
- Not everyone will agree with me. I'm not trying to shame them for "leaving the cafe." I'm just putting the view out there for consideration.
Does this all make sense?