This was great, it is beyond terrifying what happened to that student and is happening to others over the pond under this disastrous regime. I've been under a free speech pile on myself online courtesy of twat in a hat George Galloway and yeah it is not pleasant so thanks for sharing that. I agree Adolescence is brilliant and deserves every bit of it's hype, as a mum to young boy it was soul shredding. I had a tailored chat with my six year old about being safe online and boys who are horrible to girls and to my utter horror he told me he knew who the Tate brothers were because they were mentioned on a YouTube show he watched, I found the show watched 25 minutes of it and nearly vomited the amount if references to these bastards being legends there was in a video about Minecraft was terrifying I've blocked that video now and have changed permissions on Cal's iPad on what he can watch. I hate this all of it I am so glad Adolescence was made.
‘Soul-shredding’ is very apposite. And terrifying. I’ve been amazed at how many people I’ve seen saying they “loved it” with a strong sense that they’re probably hanging out for seasons two and three… I thought it was a brilliant piece of work, but not entertainment. Or at least only superficially. Really, it was a brilliant polemic against the existential threat to young people -adolescents, obviously – presented by our ever-connected, always-on society, and (by extension) to society as a whole… ‘entertainment’ is far too small a word…
I enjoyed that. Clearly there have to be some limits to free speech, but it’s always been a vexed issue deciding where the draw the line. The Kermode example is also a good one regarding how to deal with challenges, because, yes, we can sometimes slip up, but by acknowledging it and doing something about it we can perhaps move on without fear of the sky falling in.
I’m wondering what your take might be on the Uni of Sussex/Kathleen Stock issue which was adjudicated on this week?
If nothing else, it shows the nature of someone. Note how many of the fwee speech brigade won’t take any criticism. They just attack. Kermode offers them a lesson. Listen. Consider. Understand when you’re in the wrong and respond accordingly. They won’t take that lesson.
The line "I was once in a video game called Watch Dogs Legion" did trigger the response "This was on the face of it such a preposterous notion that Arthur practically choked." (And I'm glad you stood up for Helen Lewis there)
Great article. Not sure about the headline. It implies progressives had somehow abandoned freedom of speech - and only when faced with a fascist regime, recognised it's value. And, if that is what you're saying, I have to disagree.
I don't know how the "More In Common" analysis was performed, but it looks like it was, (for all intents and purposes), a binary choice - i.e. you can only choose either/or. And I think that's pretty stupid.
If I'm asked the question: "Should minorities be protected from hate speech?" My answer is "Yes".
If I'm asked the question: "Should everyone's right to free speech be protected?" My answer is again "Yes".
Yes, I know that's a contradiction. It's also the real and complicated, (non-binary), world that we live in. For instance, when hate speech results in a harmful outcome, something has to be done, no matter how much you value free speech. "More In Common" reaching a conclusion based on conflicting binary choices is flawed and misleading. Maybe even disingenuous.
Ignoring that minor flaw, I completely agree with what you are saying. And...
Um ... "when hate speech results in a harmful outcome" ... pray advise how you propose to measure that an episode of hate speech affects absolutely nobody. Yes, infer freely that I am stating that hate speech once uttered *is* the offence.
Difficult at the mo' to determine where Tangerine Twat lies along the Spectrum of Despicability: Mao; Stalin; that Hilter bloke.
I hear what you are saying, but... that allows the people in power to weaponise hate speech. We've already seen it happen in the USA with students being arrested for "antisemitic" speech/activities. It's blindingly obvious that their skin colour is why they've been targetted - not criminal activity.
As I said: the real world is complicated and non-binary. So defending both freedom of speech and the rights of minorities is always going to be tricky - as illustrated by my positive answer to both questions. My "harmful outcome" qualifier is there to mitigate against people like Trump. And no. I don't think it's difficult to determine where he's at. He's a fascist dictator.
This is, as ever, an excellent & thoughtful piece. This issue is of course complex and you tackle that complexity really well. The left abandoning the pitch and allowing people who palpably and evidently hate free speech to become the champions of free speech is quite the pickle.
"It is simply the assumption that what is bad about a person must necessarily negate what is good about them." This lack of ability to see that everything is shades of grey has been killing the progressive left for decades. We disappear up our own arseholes in our demand for purity. We need to rediscover the beauty of challenge, debate and argument. Free speech is how we make ideas better.
Part two: Prof Jo Phoenix was harassed by her employer, the OU, for having the temerity to note that the welfare of women prisoners had been completely overlooked and ought to be at least considered. Consultations and risk assessments considered every angle… except the welfare of women prisoners. The OU lost an employment tribunal… eventually. Where was the liberal outrage over free speech? There was none.
I beg you to take a moment to read about cases like Jenny Lindsay, the Scottish poet who was hounded out of her work *for saying that a post advocating violence* in an online literary magazine shouldn’t be allowed.
Or Rachel Meade, an experienced social worker, who was subject to a knee-jerk disciplinary action by her employer and, separately, the social work regulator for expressing opinions that I’m pretty sure Ian would call, ‘critical but well within the bounds of acceptable discourse’. She won her tribunal in the end but only after 18 months of suspension, stress and harassment by her employer.
There are, sadly, plenty more such cases.
I’m sure some readers will think, ‘well they must have said something really bad to be penalised’. That’s why I beg Ian, and anyone really, to look at the detail of these cases. What you’ll see is lefty lesbians and devoted public workers - the kind of people who used to be seen as progressive! - being witch-hunted by institutions for their Cass/Barnes/Lewis views.
I am an old Labour plodder, marcher against Section 28 and all the rest. I predict that in a few years most readers of Ian’s Substack will be saying, ‘mistakes were made, but nobody knew the harm that was being done to good comrades’. But the progressive side refused to listen to people - again, mainly women - telling them exactly what was happening.
Late to this, but glad to hear that Ian defended Helen Lewis.
Ian has also spoken (on Origin Stories, I think) on how institutional capture by liberal groups is no substitute for open debate and persuasion. As he says, ‘we’ve had a meeting and decided what you must and must not say’ is not a winning argument with most people.
That was a refreshing change from the line you hear/read on so many progressive podcasts and Substacks: that reports of cancelling or suppression of speech ‘always turns out to be a few students saying something daft’.
I wish that were true but it’s not. Numerous people, mostly women, a few prominent but mostly obscure, have lost jobs or work, or been subject to prolonged and torturous disciplinary action over the gender issue. And for what? For expressing views that you could summarise as the Cass/Hannah Barnes/Helen Lewis consensus. (Roughly, that trans people should be protected from discrimination and harassment, free to live in a way that as far as possible expresses their sense of themselves. But that there are areas like medicalisation of minors, single-sex spaces like refuges and prisons, and women’s sports, where simply affirming gender identity may cause harm to vulnerable people.)
Prof Jo Phoenix suggested that we should consider the impact on women prisoners if trans-identified males were placed in women’s prisons
Utterly loved the paragraph referring to Mark Kermode; free speech should be about humility and the improvement and refinement of understanding around a subject. So true 💞
Oh no you don’t. Progressives didn’t create this nightmare. Progressives are its victims.
You are not a victim because somebody complained about something you said. If you’re not in a jail cell because of something you said, then you don’t get to claim victim status.
Here we are in a fascist nightmare and the first word in the headline of your article is “Progressives”, who you reflexively hate and blame for everything because you are a Liberal(TM). I’m not angry at you because your instinctive response to absolutely everything is to punch left, as Liberals(TM) do.
You punch left as birds fly or fish swim, by your nature. Not because of any cognitive processes.
There seem to be quite a lot of stops on the train line between 'someone complained about something you said' and 'being thrown in jail'.
The idea that anything less than the latter is really no worse than the former is absurd. In fact it is empirically untrue, a mammoth and grotesque simplification of all the ways that people can be intimidated and harassed for speaking up.
But it does cast light on why some progressive activists don't recognise the damage they have caused, and still cause, to the freedoms we all cherish and deserve.
This was great, it is beyond terrifying what happened to that student and is happening to others over the pond under this disastrous regime. I've been under a free speech pile on myself online courtesy of twat in a hat George Galloway and yeah it is not pleasant so thanks for sharing that. I agree Adolescence is brilliant and deserves every bit of it's hype, as a mum to young boy it was soul shredding. I had a tailored chat with my six year old about being safe online and boys who are horrible to girls and to my utter horror he told me he knew who the Tate brothers were because they were mentioned on a YouTube show he watched, I found the show watched 25 minutes of it and nearly vomited the amount if references to these bastards being legends there was in a video about Minecraft was terrifying I've blocked that video now and have changed permissions on Cal's iPad on what he can watch. I hate this all of it I am so glad Adolescence was made.
‘Soul-shredding’ is very apposite. And terrifying. I’ve been amazed at how many people I’ve seen saying they “loved it” with a strong sense that they’re probably hanging out for seasons two and three… I thought it was a brilliant piece of work, but not entertainment. Or at least only superficially. Really, it was a brilliant polemic against the existential threat to young people -adolescents, obviously – presented by our ever-connected, always-on society, and (by extension) to society as a whole… ‘entertainment’ is far too small a word…
Ian, this is superb 🙏
I enjoyed that. Clearly there have to be some limits to free speech, but it’s always been a vexed issue deciding where the draw the line. The Kermode example is also a good one regarding how to deal with challenges, because, yes, we can sometimes slip up, but by acknowledging it and doing something about it we can perhaps move on without fear of the sky falling in.
I’m wondering what your take might be on the Uni of Sussex/Kathleen Stock issue which was adjudicated on this week?
If nothing else, it shows the nature of someone. Note how many of the fwee speech brigade won’t take any criticism. They just attack. Kermode offers them a lesson. Listen. Consider. Understand when you’re in the wrong and respond accordingly. They won’t take that lesson.
As ever, an essential analysis - thank you.
The line "I was once in a video game called Watch Dogs Legion" did trigger the response "This was on the face of it such a preposterous notion that Arthur practically choked." (And I'm glad you stood up for Helen Lewis there)
The paragraph starting with “They thought free speech was about machismo…” is writing on another level. So very good.
Great article. Not sure about the headline. It implies progressives had somehow abandoned freedom of speech - and only when faced with a fascist regime, recognised it's value. And, if that is what you're saying, I have to disagree.
I don't know how the "More In Common" analysis was performed, but it looks like it was, (for all intents and purposes), a binary choice - i.e. you can only choose either/or. And I think that's pretty stupid.
If I'm asked the question: "Should minorities be protected from hate speech?" My answer is "Yes".
If I'm asked the question: "Should everyone's right to free speech be protected?" My answer is again "Yes".
Yes, I know that's a contradiction. It's also the real and complicated, (non-binary), world that we live in. For instance, when hate speech results in a harmful outcome, something has to be done, no matter how much you value free speech. "More In Common" reaching a conclusion based on conflicting binary choices is flawed and misleading. Maybe even disingenuous.
Ignoring that minor flaw, I completely agree with what you are saying. And...
The US is fucked!
Um ... "when hate speech results in a harmful outcome" ... pray advise how you propose to measure that an episode of hate speech affects absolutely nobody. Yes, infer freely that I am stating that hate speech once uttered *is* the offence.
Difficult at the mo' to determine where Tangerine Twat lies along the Spectrum of Despicability: Mao; Stalin; that Hilter bloke.
The feeble folding of US academics is lamentable.
I hear what you are saying, but... that allows the people in power to weaponise hate speech. We've already seen it happen in the USA with students being arrested for "antisemitic" speech/activities. It's blindingly obvious that their skin colour is why they've been targetted - not criminal activity.
As I said: the real world is complicated and non-binary. So defending both freedom of speech and the rights of minorities is always going to be tricky - as illustrated by my positive answer to both questions. My "harmful outcome" qualifier is there to mitigate against people like Trump. And no. I don't think it's difficult to determine where he's at. He's a fascist dictator.
This is, as ever, an excellent & thoughtful piece. This issue is of course complex and you tackle that complexity really well. The left abandoning the pitch and allowing people who palpably and evidently hate free speech to become the champions of free speech is quite the pickle.
Magnificently well said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 I love the description , “neuron-free grifters”. Here in Australia we are well supplied with them 🙄.
I. Love. This.
Fabulous piece, as usual.
"It is simply the assumption that what is bad about a person must necessarily negate what is good about them." This lack of ability to see that everything is shades of grey has been killing the progressive left for decades. We disappear up our own arseholes in our demand for purity. We need to rediscover the beauty of challenge, debate and argument. Free speech is how we make ideas better.
Part two: Prof Jo Phoenix was harassed by her employer, the OU, for having the temerity to note that the welfare of women prisoners had been completely overlooked and ought to be at least considered. Consultations and risk assessments considered every angle… except the welfare of women prisoners. The OU lost an employment tribunal… eventually. Where was the liberal outrage over free speech? There was none.
I beg you to take a moment to read about cases like Jenny Lindsay, the Scottish poet who was hounded out of her work *for saying that a post advocating violence* in an online literary magazine shouldn’t be allowed.
Or Rachel Meade, an experienced social worker, who was subject to a knee-jerk disciplinary action by her employer and, separately, the social work regulator for expressing opinions that I’m pretty sure Ian would call, ‘critical but well within the bounds of acceptable discourse’. She won her tribunal in the end but only after 18 months of suspension, stress and harassment by her employer.
There are, sadly, plenty more such cases.
I’m sure some readers will think, ‘well they must have said something really bad to be penalised’. That’s why I beg Ian, and anyone really, to look at the detail of these cases. What you’ll see is lefty lesbians and devoted public workers - the kind of people who used to be seen as progressive! - being witch-hunted by institutions for their Cass/Barnes/Lewis views.
I am an old Labour plodder, marcher against Section 28 and all the rest. I predict that in a few years most readers of Ian’s Substack will be saying, ‘mistakes were made, but nobody knew the harm that was being done to good comrades’. But the progressive side refused to listen to people - again, mainly women - telling them exactly what was happening.
Late to this, but glad to hear that Ian defended Helen Lewis.
Ian has also spoken (on Origin Stories, I think) on how institutional capture by liberal groups is no substitute for open debate and persuasion. As he says, ‘we’ve had a meeting and decided what you must and must not say’ is not a winning argument with most people.
That was a refreshing change from the line you hear/read on so many progressive podcasts and Substacks: that reports of cancelling or suppression of speech ‘always turns out to be a few students saying something daft’.
I wish that were true but it’s not. Numerous people, mostly women, a few prominent but mostly obscure, have lost jobs or work, or been subject to prolonged and torturous disciplinary action over the gender issue. And for what? For expressing views that you could summarise as the Cass/Hannah Barnes/Helen Lewis consensus. (Roughly, that trans people should be protected from discrimination and harassment, free to live in a way that as far as possible expresses their sense of themselves. But that there are areas like medicalisation of minors, single-sex spaces like refuges and prisons, and women’s sports, where simply affirming gender identity may cause harm to vulnerable people.)
Prof Jo Phoenix suggested that we should consider the impact on women prisoners if trans-identified males were placed in women’s prisons
Utterly loved the paragraph referring to Mark Kermode; free speech should be about humility and the improvement and refinement of understanding around a subject. So true 💞
Oh no you don’t. Progressives didn’t create this nightmare. Progressives are its victims.
You are not a victim because somebody complained about something you said. If you’re not in a jail cell because of something you said, then you don’t get to claim victim status.
Every sentence of this is stupid but the final one is particularly ambitious.
Here we are in a fascist nightmare and the first word in the headline of your article is “Progressives”, who you reflexively hate and blame for everything because you are a Liberal(TM). I’m not angry at you because your instinctive response to absolutely everything is to punch left, as Liberals(TM) do.
You punch left as birds fly or fish swim, by your nature. Not because of any cognitive processes.
Your day has come and gone.
There seem to be quite a lot of stops on the train line between 'someone complained about something you said' and 'being thrown in jail'.
The idea that anything less than the latter is really no worse than the former is absurd. In fact it is empirically untrue, a mammoth and grotesque simplification of all the ways that people can be intimidated and harassed for speaking up.
But it does cast light on why some progressive activists don't recognise the damage they have caused, and still cause, to the freedoms we all cherish and deserve.
The farcical claim that progressive activists are *at all* responsible for this is a diabolical lie and plays into the hands of the fascists.
“Look what you made me do”