Stop Letting Nonsense Purveyors Cosplay As Free Speech Martyrs
from the oh,-i-do-declare-westminster dept
A few people have been asking me about last week’s release of something called the “Westminster Declaration,” which is a high and mighty sounding “declaration” about freedom of speech, signed by a bunch of journalists, academics, advocates and more. It reminded me a lot of the infamous “Harper’s Letter” from a few years ago that generated a bunch of controversy for similar reasons.
In short, both documents take a few very real concerns about attacks on free expression, but commingle them with a bunch of total bullshit huckster concerns that only pretend to be about free speech, in order to legitimize the latter with the former. The argument form is becoming all too common these days, in which you nod along with the obvious stuff, but any reasonable mind should stop and wonder why the nonsense part was included as well.
It’s like saying war is bad, and we should all seek peace, and my neighbor Ned is an asshole who makes me want to be violent, so since we all agree that war is bad, we should banish Ned.
The Westminster Declaration is sort of like that, but the parts about war are about legitimate attacks of free speech around the globe (nearly all of which we cover here), and the parts about my neighbor Ned are… the bogus Twitter Files.
The Daily Beast asked me to write up something about it all, so I wrote a fairly long analysis of just how silly the Westminster Declaration turns out to be when you break down the details. Here’s a snippet:
I think there is much in the Westminster Declaration that is worth supporting. We’re seeing laws pushed, worldwide, that seek to silence voices on the internet. Global attacks on privacy and speech-enhancing encryption technologies are a legitimate concern.
But the Declaration—apparently authored by Michael Shellenberger and Matt Taibbi, along with Andrew Lowenthal, according to their announcement of the document—seeks to take those legitimate concerns and wrap them tightly around a fantasy concoction. It’s a moral panic of their own creation, arguing that separate from the legitimate concern of censorial laws being passed in numerous countries passed, there is something more nefarious—what they have hilariously dubbed “the censorship-industrial complex.”
To be clear, this is something that does not actually exist. It’s a fever dream from people who are upset that they, or their friends, violated the rules of social media platforms and faced the consequences.
But, unable to admit that private entities determining their own rules is an act of free expression itself (the right not to associate with speech is just as important as the right to speak), the crux of the Westminster Declaration is an attempt to commingle legitimate concerns about government censorship with grievances about private companies’ moderation decisions.
You can click through to read the whole thing…
Filed Under: free seech, matt taibbi, michael shellenberger, moral panic, twitter files, westminster declaration
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Stop Letting Nonsense Purveyors Cosplay As Free Speech Martyrs”
There is a bright line between the government will not stop you publishing, or others helping you publish; and the government forcing others to help you publish. The first says the government will not use compulsion, the second says it will compel others.
Re:
How does this relate to moderation decisions by social media companies?
Re: Re:
A not-zero number of people believe companies like Twitter and Meta/Facebook should be forced by law to carry all legally protected speech. But if we require freedom from religion to have freedom of religion, we must have freedom from speech to have freedom of speech—which means the state can’t compel someone to speak/publish/host the speech of a third party. The idea of “freedom of reach” is some goddamn bullshit; anyone who says otherwise is trying to shovel shit down your throat and tell you it’s five-star cuisine.
Re: Re: Re:
I’d suggest there’s a significant number of people who disagree with both of those requirements.
Re: Re: Re:2
The Henry Ford model of Freedom of Religion? “You can have any religion you want … as long as it is [denomination]”?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No matter how much you complain and attack, you’re still never getting back the left-wing viewpoint censorship that Twitter used to provide for you.
Large privately-owned generic speech platforms are where the public conversation now takes place. If that wasn’t clear before, the myriad viewpoints surrounding the war between Israel and the Palestinian terrorists available on X should be making that clear now. When governments attempt to influence these platforms to skew what speech is visible to favor their own point of view and to hide others, they are interfering with the free speech of the people, whether or not the laws of the country permit the government to do this. When the platforms censor opinions based on viewpoint, they are interfering with the free speech of the people using the platforms, regardless of whether the platforms are legally entitled to use their own free speech rights to do so.
As always, because you want to outsource censorship to friendly private third-parties not bound by the 1st Amendment, you ignore that legal and moral are two separate things. The platforms are allowed to censor as they wish, but they should not censor based on viewpoint because that is the wrong thing to do in a society that has free speech as a foundational value. The government may be allowed to ask platforms to censor as it wishes, but it should not be doing so because that is the wrong thing to do in a society that has free speech as a foundational value. If the government wants to promote a view, it should state what it believes; it should not ask that opposing views be silenced. If it wants to tell platforms to take down certain viewpoints anyway, it should at least do that publicly, not in secret communications with the platforms, so that everyone knows that the government is making such requests.
Re:
Why not? Choosing speech to associate with is part of the First Amendment.
Banning people for spreading white supremacist slogans is legal, and so is banning people for making fun of Elon Musk. And a social media website operator (can, but) doesn’t have to bow down to your morals.
Sounds good. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/27/what-transparency-twitter-seems-to-have-forgotten-about-transparency-reporting/
Re: Re:
If anything, a website owner being able to choose whether their site will host the speech of people whose viewpoints disgust said owner is a fundamental part of the First Amendment.
“But…but they discriminated against my viewpoints!” Maybe your viewpoints suck. Get better opinions or get bent, but stop trying to force your shit onto a site that doesn’t want it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
As always, because you want the viewpoint-based censorship that the large genetic speech platforms give you, or gave you, you want to construe suasion as force, so that you can claim that platforms are being forced to host speech, rather than being urged not to censor.
“You cannot speak unless you speak the correct views”, is, of course, the essence of censorship, and it’s not at all surprising that this is your goal.
Re: Re: Re:2
…said nobody literate, ever.
Re: Re: Re:2
lmao fuck off you dope
Re: Re: Re:2
Fuck off Hyman, you aren’t welcome here.
Re: Re: Re:2
If you can distinguish persuasion and force for carrying speech, why can you not distinguish censorship and moderation when it comes to not carrying speech. Presuming you are Hyman, you want back on various platforms to shutdown and useful discussion about and amongst trans people, and that is abusing the idea of free speech to censor others.
Re: Re: Re:2
““You cannot speak unless you speak the correct views”,”
More like – Don’t be a dick.
Re: Re: Re:2
“viewpoint based censorship” might be the single dumbest phrase ever written down.
Re: Re: Re:3 'I wasn't kicked out for being racist, it was 'viewpoint based censorship'!'
Less dumb and more cowardly and dishonest given how it always seems to be used by scum to whine about being shown the door without having to own up to why they keep getting kicked out of so many groups/platforms, because even they know that they’re not likely to get any sympathy if they admit what they were saying before the boot.
Re:
Fuck off Herman, you aren’t welcome here but like any other rapist you just have to force yourself on other people.
Re:
The newspapers and magazines used to be that place, and nobody complained about editorial decisions, but bought or borrowed the newspapers or magazines that carried speech they wanted to read. The same applies to social media, as there are other outlets that X,Facebook and YouTube. Having access to a large audience is not a necessity for freedom of speech.
Re: Re:
People still complained a lot about “editorial decisions” in the olden days. Granted, it was often about the decisions at publications that they didn’t read.
Re: Re:
Of all the many dumbfuck things written on Techdirt, this certainly is one of them
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
So, Hyman.
Where are these commies, huh?
And why do you hate private property rights, and keeping America safe?
Re:
You do know SCOTUS has ruled the government has a right to free speech? That it has a right to use the bully pulpit to enact its goal.
Re:
It’s funny that you think that any of us are all that bothered by it or believe it is obligated to do so rather than simply noting that it was a dumb decision from a business perspective.
Also, this is about the government forcing platforms to moderate (or refuse to moderate) a certain way, not about criticizing some platforms’ decisions that they have the right to do.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Disney Fever Dream
Just yesterday, Techdirt reported on the Censorship Industrial Complex cancelling Jon Stewart for offending the chinese communists. Today, the Censorship Industrial Complex does not actually exist.
Re:
Making shit up about what was actually said to make up some new shit. Do you even have one ounce of decency in you or you just fine with straight up lying?
Re: Re:
Karl used cancelled, and not censored while criticizing a apple for that decision. Besides which how is Jon Stewart censored when he immediately found another way of publishing his show?
Re: Re: Re:
Oops clicked the wrong reply. The above is meant to be a reply to the same comment as yours.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing speech based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The ability of the silenced to speak elsewhere is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:2
But only government censorship is what’s unconstitutional. Socializing tech companies so you get a platform to espouse your facist, makes you sound like a commie.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Private companies may censor as they like, and people who don’t like the censorship can criticize those companies, shame them, or buy them to get them to change their behavior.
It’s similar to the pro-terrorist “students” on the degenerate college campuses that spent today terrorizing Jewish students and extolling Palestinian rapists, murderers, and kidnappers. The “students” have the right to march and speak as they like (and should be shot when they commit actual violent acts and resist arrest), the university administrators have the right to be as craven in their responses as they like, and normal people have the right to look at this and say that wokeness is poison, wokeness is death.
Re: Re: Re:4
Your whole bit about “viewpoint based censorship” (🙄) is predicated on the idea that you can make a service voluntarily change how it moderates speech it refuses to host/take seriously. When you can’t do that with any amount of whining about how a service won’t let you shittalk trans people, what option do you have left besides coercion through either the law, violence, or threats thereof? And don’t tell me “I can always use another platform”—your whole bit is predicated on the idea that “large generic speech platforms” (🙄) that are open to the public should be obligated to host all third-party speech (including CSAM, you sick fuck).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
There’s the Elon Musk option, where someone else takes over the platform and changes it.
Otherwise, if they won’t change, then they won’t change, and there’s nothing to be done. Nothing requires that large privately-owned generic speech platforms avoid censorship of viewpoints they don’t like. The saving grace, of course, is that lies cannot change reality. Men can never be women even if every platform in the world won’t let people say that. Jesus and Allah and Jehovah and Vishnu don’t exist even if every platform in the world won’t let people say that.
Re: Re: Re:6
So tell us, are you a billionaire with 44 billion dollars to burn? If you aren’t, that option isn’t for you.
Said the sociopath.
Re: Re: Re:3
Balderdash, what could possibly be communistic about seizing the means of (speech) production for the greater good?
Re:
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the right to compel any interactive web service into hosting any third-party speech that it would otherwise refuse to host?
Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/24/apple-cancelled-jon-stewart-because-feckless-tech-executives-were-afraid-of-the-pesky-truth/
No “communist” in the article. No “censor” in the article. No “industrial” in the article. No “complex” in the article. Koby has a make-shit-up complex.
Your poor strawman, how could you hurt a straw bale? Human rights for straw bales! On articles about US companies, you claim that there is such thing in the US. Techdirt argues that there is none in the US. Techdirt does not say the same about China. End of story.
Re: Re:
Previous commenter here.
I had typed this and then added more text before it without correcting ambiguities. By “such thing” I mean “censorship industrial complex”, a term Koby likes to use to describe something in Koby’s fictional version of the US.
Re:
” Today, the Censorship Industrial Complex does not actually exist.”
Koby does not actually exist.
Re:
You may be confusing Techdirt with some right-wing conspiracy fever dream website that you also read yesterday. Techdirt reported how John Stewart made a decision to walk away from Apple.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No no, he’s right, that was an actual article Techdirt wrote.
Now of course, Apple is paying Stewart, but they TD complained about that exact thing nonetheless.
Re: Re: Re:
Except it wasn’t. It may have been the headline, but what actually happened was that Apple threatened to cancel the show, which resulted in Stewart leaving.
Also, the “Censorship Industrial Complex” isn’t a thing.
Re: Re: Re:
I know what TD wrote and it wasn’t that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the right to compel any interactive web service into hosting meatspin?
Re:
A complex implies an actual structural connection between all your ideas as to who the players in this group are. I can guarantee the people who “cancelled” Louis C. K. have few to no connections with the Apple millionaires. And all the Republican states trying to censor drag queen story hour are most definitely not connected with the swarm that attacks anybody that is deemed to have maligned Taylor Swift. None of those four groups are connected. The Military Industrial complex is filled with people from the military retiring and working for military contractors. Those contractors are littered with people from the military.
There is no such thing as the whatever nonsense you named it that I am not going to bother to scroll up and read again to accurately quote your moronic words. Your reality only works if you twist words beyond their accepted meanings and ignore input from people you disagree with and that’s not reality, that’s a fantasy. You’re the snowflake who cannot handle being around people different from you. The rest of us can handle your stupid, inept presence that you think makes us tremble. And I say that as a big ole femme gay guy in a deep red state, I’ve had drunk rednecks pull guns on me that I’ve talked down, you’re literally nothing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I'll agree to this if
You stop letting Marxist idealogues stop cos-playing as “holders of the truth”.
Re: I know how you can find the Holder of the Truth.
In any city, in any country, go to any mental institution or halfway house you can get yourself to. When you reach the front desk, ask politely to visit someone who calls himself “The Holder of the Truth”. The worker will nod slightly, then turn back to what he was doing. He will not respond if you ask him again, but do not dare ask him a third time, for if you do he will show his true form to you and rend you into strips of flesh on the spot.
Turn to leave. The door has vanished, but there is a trapdoor in the floor that did not exist before. Open it. Preferably with something long—that gives you a better chance of escape should they be waiting for you on the other side. If they are, run; run as far into the asylum as you can. Find a window and jump out, for all the doors are barred or banished. Once you get out of the window, flee as far as you can, preferably crossing as much water as possible, for while it will not stop them, it will slow them. And you will require each second to make peace with your god.
If they are not waiting, jump through the trapdoor. You will land in a splendid library. People in exquisite and elaborate dress are everywhere, chatting, reading, and relaxing. Do not touch any of them or attempt to choose a book, for that is the trigger, and you do not want to pull it.
Look around; you have all the time you need. Eventually you will find a gray-haired man sitting at a desk, stamping an endless pile of books with an old “returned” stamp. Do not attempt to touch him or the books, for if you do, all the pleasant people will reveal what they really look like—and if you are driven mad in an instant by what you see then, consider yourself lucky, for you will not feel the pain as they set upon you in a vehement rage.
Instead, ask the librarian one question, and one question only: “Which one holds His law?”
The librarian will look up. His eyes are a color not native to this Earth or even this galaxy; they are a color so impossible that you may be driven mad simply by their gaze. Steel yourself, and stare directly into his eyes. Do not break eye contact, or he will look back down, not wanting to view the scene as the other patrons set upon you. He will tell you a name. It is a long one, but he will give you a card to help remember it. Before you turn to look for the book, ask if he will check it out in advance. He will nod, and stamp the card.
Do not bother looking for the book. It has already been stolen from the library, and you must find it. Close your eyes and say three words: “Find the thief.”
Do not open your eyes for ten seconds, for if the prior adventures have not driven you mad, what you see then will.
After ten seconds have passed, open your eyes. You will be across the street from the asylum, still holding the card.
That card is Object 57 of 538. You have checked out the book; it is now your duty to return it.
Re:
Point out the supposed hypocrisy in the article.
Re:
“You stop letting Marxist idealogues stop cos-playing as “holders of the truth”.”
What is your definition of the word truth?
I ask because I know what Donald thinks the word means and many of his zombie followers are of the same mental illness.
I never met a marxist, much less an ideologue. I doubt there are any real marxists anywhere to be found.
Question: Is the earth flat?
Re: Re:
I have met several Marxists and MANY ideologues. Most of the Marxists were also ideologues, almost by definition.
In short: What the FUCK are you talking about?
Re: Re: Re:
The fuck we’re talking about is that you need to throw yourself out of a window.
Re:
I’ll stop if you can point out where these Marxist ideologues are.
I’m pretty sure you know who they are. And it isn’t Democrats.
Surely THIS longwinded manifesto will make them stop calling us transphobes!
Look, even though most of what you’ve written is true, we all know that Ned really is an asshole.
Re:
I’ve heard he’s a lefty too and don’t ask him what he can ding dong diddly do for you.
Remember that the group of frauds calling themselves “America’s Frontline Doctors,” who were the primary reason most people ever heard the “Hudroxychloroquine/Ivermectintreats COVID” lie because they had kickback deals with shady online pharmacies, used to be registered under the name “Free Speech Foundation.”
'No no, I'm sure this time you were kicked out for bad reasons, sure...'
Nothing like conflating governments issuing edicts and/or laws that certain speech is not allowed anywhere with private property owners setting and enforcing rules about what speech they do and do not want to be associate with on their private property to show just how massive the self-entitlement has grown for some people.
To hold to the belief that ‘free speech’ not only means you can say whatever you want with no consequences but that it also includes a provision granting you the right to use whatever platform you want to speak from, even if the owner doesn’t want you serves to demonstrate a mindset that never got past the ‘Everything is mine’ stage of mental development most children grow out of.
Re:
And the ones who don’t turn out to be huge pieces of shit. To wit: Donald Trump and his adult children.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You hate free speech, just admit it.
I knew nothing about this declaration, thanks for letting me know about it.
But Shellenberger and Taibi are correct on all these issues where you are illiberal and wrong, indeed a willing accessory to real crimes. An active partisan shill aiding the censorship state.
They are also better people than you.
So I can only assume said declaration is correct on almost all points.
Ah, yes, that would be you.
Re:
That’s just because of your MDS.
Re: If it were a crime
then there would be a law that was broken. So point it out. Quote it, specifically. Or at the very least, find a court ruling that supports your position. Anything at all. Because anyone, with even the slimmest understanding of free speech principals, knows that individuals and organizations are free to restrict it as the see fit with only a few restrictions.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The first amendment, you actual moron.
If you don’t understand the topic at hand, just say that.
Re: Re: Re:
Tell us you don’t understand the topic at hand without saying you don’t understand the topic at hand, moron.
Re: Re: Re:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Note the key word “Congress”, you obsequious fucking moron.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Nobody who is anybody cares about what straight men think, because when you fucktards think, it runs society and the planet to the fucking ground.
We’re finally waking up and you can’t put the LBTQGenie back into the bottle. Fuck you and the horse you’re supposed to ride in on.
Re:
[Projects hallucinations contrary to the evidence]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike Masnick Malding Again
Just yesterday he was upset that apple was censoring Jon Stewart because he was going to be critical of China, now he is gas lighting us into thinking that Jon Stewart is cosplaying as a free speech martyr, after all the same reasoning applies to him as it does to people on twitter.
Re:
Jon Stewart did not whine when his show got cancelled. He got it out through other means.
Meanwhile you’re here whining about how your group (ie, white supremacists) is being “censored” (spoiler: they aren’t, despite even committing insurrection).
Please return to the Kiwifarms and STAY THERE. You clearly have no idea about American Law, Oregon Law or law proper, as evidenced by you VERY OBVIOUS CONVICTION and shithead arguments VIA COPYRIGHT LAW.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Buddy, there’s people (most of them not “white”) in the streets celebrating the grisly executions of 1400 people, and you’re out here crying about supposed “white supremacists” just cuz you think that’s an easy label to denigrate your political enemies.
My brother in Christ, the closest thing to nazis today are on your side!
Re: Re: Re:
Matthew, you disingenious Nazi.
That’s because you are, indeed, a dangerous, violent political enemy to democracy, freedom and even the very JEWS you pretend to defend.
The same fucking shit ideology that has been exported to developing countries and even MY FUCKING HOME.
The same fucking shit ideology that has been swiftly embedded in Africa and at least ONE Southeast Asian country. Which enabled China to cement and ossify herself as the regional hegemon and bully economically.
You, the 74 million that think like you, the politicians YOU voted and your rich as fuck backers all helped create this shitstorm you want to force onto the world at large.
You’re not wrong in saying I hate people like you, the revenge porn man and fascist bootlickers like davec and Lodos. And it does come to no one’s surprise that I think you all deserve no less than a grisly, violent death.
I’ll just end it here by saying I am fully capable of defending myself, should you choose the violent route. And I don’t have any mercy for those who see others as not even human.
Which does include you.
Re:
Criticizing something and being upset about something are not synonymous.
In what way is he gaslighting us into thinking that?
What reasoning?
Re:
Exactly, when Apple would no longer carry his speech, he found somewhere else that would.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Not an "analysis" btw
Buddy….Taibbi and Shellenberger accused you and yours of a thing — a very real thing for which the receipts have been published — and you wrote an INCREDIBLY long “nuh uh”.
Just the same gaslighting and lying.
Re:
Atleast you accurately labeled your own gaslighting and lying this time.
Re:
You don’t have to keep proving your lack of comprehension and reasoning skills, sport. We got the picture.
What can you expect to happen when no one actually teaches that “free speech” actually means “you can’t be punished by the government for saying something” and not, “you can’t be told to shut the fuck up by anyone anywhere”?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
The Westminster Declaration, like the Harper’s Letter, blends legitimate concerns about free speech with unfounded notions of a “censorship-industrial complex.” While there are valid issues, this conflation obscures the real problems, highlighting the need for a nuanced, fact-based discussion to protect free expression effectively.
Re:
How long did it take ChatGPT to make that comment for you?
Tell us the declaration will not contain a single fact without saying the declaration will not contain a single fact.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
…said no rational person ever, you Hamas-supporting degenerate.
Re: Re:
…said no human, ever.
Re:
That was my immediate thought upon seeing Taibbi’s name as well.
‘Oh, well I’m sure this will be super honest and factual if he’s involved.’