Free Speech & Censorship - Where Is The Line Drawn?
The Raging Battle On Substack Has Now Reached Other Social Networks
Before delving deeper into this subject, for full disclosure, I, like many others, released a post in my Newsletter of the signed letter “Substackers Against Nazis.” I also requested my name be put on that list. That is so you know exactly where I stand on this issue.
Yet, I will be honest. It is not as black & white as it sounds.
For days now, I have been reading many of the posts and notes put up by both sides on this subject. I have also watched as this has spilled over into social media. It is not a pretty sight, to say the least.
Some, on both sides, are very well thought out. Some are inane dribbling of Jew-haters or just for the sake of attacking someone on either side. But that is to be expected. Some are simple clickbait, and some try to express a POV. Some have an axe to grind, and others want their well-thought-out opinions in print. Some attack individuals and some defend their stance without attacking a person or entity.
Let me repeat. That goes for both sides of the fence.
I commented very few times, though there were moments that I will admit my fingers started itching like they do on X. In the end, I realized that what I wanted to comment on were the attention-seekers and clickbait.
Along my journey, I met one or two individuals who were not on my side of the fence, yet they proved that a respectful and intelligent conversation about the topic could occur. I met others, of course, who agreed with me, and they were awesome, as well.
So, along this journey of reading, which goes on even today, I realized that a few significant points are being ignored. Or at least that is the way it seems to me. Indeed, I am beginning to see the argument veering away from the underlying focal point into an attack-fest, or who can find the most disgusting photographs of Hitler and the Nazis that exist. I am waiting for the idiot who thinks it is funny to put up photos of concentration camp prisoners. It would not surprise me.
This is not about Katz or his reasons, nor the Atlantic and their reasons. This is an attempt to have an earnest discussion of what, if any, are the limits of “free speech.”
I am purposefully leaving out names here, except for the original author of the Atlantic article. I do not know him, though I agree with his underlying premise. This does not mean I agree with every word he wrote.
Of course, due to the very topic, it has gone to Jews, Israel, Hamas, and all the rest. Now, there seems to be an entire mixup between those who want to attack Israel and the Jews and those who want to defend them.
Let me remind all of you that the Nazis, along with the Japanese, began World War Two. And please, I beg of you, leave your comments attempting to teach me the nuances of history out of your replies. I am, as well, a student of history, especially that era. And I know all the arguments on how World War Two actually began. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove, the Nazis, on September 1st, 1939, fired the opening salvo. Why do I mention this? Because seven years later, thirty-five million would be dead. So, it does not only affect the Jews.
Calling names, or using the term Nazi, for shock value is not something new to me, or I would guess many on this platform. And I honestly could not care less if you have one reader for your pub or 10,000 paying you as a subscription fee. It has no place in such an argument.
At its core, this discussion is about the limits that should be put on “free speech,” if any. And yes, it is a dangerous, slippery slope (as the cliche goes.) Limits on free speech, especially to the American mind, is an anathema.
Some use the term Nazi for shock - others out of pure hate. But when everything is words within pixels, who can tell? Does the individual who posted a zillion pictures of Nazis in his post think that it is free speech, or is it hate of Jews, love of Nazis, or just a way to express his anger? I do not know, nor can anyone else except for the poster.
So, let us be honest here.
Free speech is a gift. A wonderful, beautiful gift. It is an inherent right of the Western mind, and we are blessed with it. Remember, most of the world is not endowed with such rights. They live in areas where free speech will get you killed or jailed.
“Free Speech” also comes with responsibility. And I fear it is that responsibility that is being ignored and pushed to the side.
There are calls to action, names, and epitaphs that enflame the “mob.” They give it strength. And suddenly, what was once speech crosses a line and becomes action.
That is the danger. Not Substack. Not the writer of the original article. The danger lies in the use of the term “Nazi” becoming acceptable. And once that is acceptable and the norm, then the crimes the Nazis committed are no longer so heinous in the mind. Many sick minds can even defend them.
This, and again, my personal opinion is the underlying danger. When does “free speech” endanger freedom itself? Not whether or not Substack does or says anything, not whether the writer is true to his words or just a two-faced, cynical attention-grabber. On that, I could not care less.
The heart of this argument is whether “free speech” or some aspects of it does not end with just words. We all know that yelling “fire” in a movie theater, where no such fire exists, is against the law. Why? Because it will cause a riot, and people may get killed running for the exits. But my yelling “fire” is me exercising free speech. What others do how it affects anyone else, is not my problem. After all, they can stay seated and continue watching the movie.
Let’s take another example. If your neighbor’s child came over to you and said tomorrow he is going to shoot up his school and kill as many people as he can, you would, if you have any sense of morality, call the police immediately. Yet, it was that child’s free speech. And in this case, the child has done nothing as of yet. That child just expressed a desire to do something heinous. But still, you would call the police. Why? Because you are preventing a horrendous act that may happen in the future.
So, let us not be disingenuous. We all agree that free speech does have limitations. That limitation is when it is used in a manner that can cause harm or death to others.
So, on one hand, we have this beautiful gift, which we consider an inherent right. On the other hand, we will all admit that grave responsibilities come with this gift. If you disagree, may I suggest you leave your ivory tower for a quick walk around town?
We also can agree, I hope, that using racist epitaphs is disgusting. I don’t care about your religion, race, or creed. It is vile, heinous and unforgivable. Racial slurs may be considered by many as “free speech,” but anyone who has spent five minutes studying history knows precisely where that road leads.
The term “Nazi” is not the problem. It can be used in many ways and is way too overused these days, taking the crime's power away from the term.
But what the actual term “Nazi” represents - is the problem. The true meaning of someone supporting a Nazi. It is a word, or phrase if you will, that brings to mind some of the most horrendous crimes against humanity.
The Nazis, specifically Josef Goebbels, invented the “Doctrine of the Lie.” The Nazis knew all too well how to use speech to enflame the masses. Those same masses did not, in any way, shape, manner, or form, have any free speech. Yet, the Nazis were masters at it. They used it to manipulate and cause entire populations to accomplish unimaginable acts ten years beforehand.
Yet, if someone on Substack or X or anywhere else wants to use the term, it is, without doubt, their right to do so. It is their right and their responsibility to bear. I do not argue with that in any way.
Yet I do know what happens when “free speech” so easily crosses the boundaries into action. I know exactly what happens when “fire” is yelled out in that crowded theater or the neighbor chooses not to call the police.
Speech, words, and terms are a funny thing. Everyone who writes knows this to be a fact. How often have you written something that you thought was incredibly clear, only to have someone interpret your words in a manner you never intended or even thought of? Maybe you are incredible, but that has happened to me and others too often. And I am sure it will happen with this piece as well.
Arguing this while sitting behind our desks, in our ivory towers, is also a bit disingenuous. Speech, all speech, has consequences. Call someone “fat” or “ugly,” and you will immediately see the effect it has. It is not just what you write and say but what you say or write when it affects others. You want to convince. You want to make your POV heard. All this is legitimate and should be done. Without question.
And if what you say is a call for action or the terms you use enflame the mob, then your free speech is now invading my free space. And that is not free speech; it is those flying that banner becoming dictatorial in their application of their free speech. They have the right to it; I, on the other hand, do not. Don’t believe me? Look at the number of posts attacking others for their POV when the poster waves the banner for “free speech.” The OP has no such right because it disagrees with the enlightened among us, who believe free speech has no boundaries.
So “Nazi” can connote many things. But if it is used in a manner to enflame others, no, I’m afraid I have to disagree you have the right to do that. I cannot agree that bringing up the death of six million Jews, or thirty-five million people killed in World War Two, because of the “Nazis” just to enflame the mob is your right to free speech. It is you threatening to shoot up the school. I cannot agree that if you put up pictures of Hitler to enflame and get clicks, it is a valid expression of free speech.
You see, from where I sit, after October 7th (and yes, our lives have become “before & after” to my great sorrow), watching just as bad hate speech as the Nazis used, with marches calling to “Gas the Jews,” and antisemitic attacks up in the hundreds of percent, Jewish students being physically attacked on campus, religious symbols being destroyed and torn down, people walking down the major avenues in NYC screaming “F**k the Jews” and pulling down kidnapped posters with no police intervention, others pulling down the American Flag all over NYC and putting the Palestinian one in its place, and then burning the American Flag (as if they were in a anti-Vietnam War rally); chanting by the tens of thousands “From the River to the Sea..” a statement straight out of Bin Laden’s “Open Letter to America” if you bother to read it...and no matter how you put it, that is a call for genocide if there ever was one...
And on and on it goes - all in the name of free speech.
That type of free speech is eerily reminiscent of the days before Kristallnacht. That free speech leads to much worse. The road from screaming out “Gas the Jews” to that of hurting or killing is very short.
That type of free speech, that allowance of saying anything, anytime, to anyone, will, without doubt, and I say this with 100% assurance, will lead to vile actions. People will be harmed and killed.
The term “Nazi” is a wake-up call. It is not the crux of this problem. The problem is much deeper, the rot much worse.
As I have told some friends on the other side of this argument, and we have civil and enlightening discussions about this problem, I fully admit I do not have an answer for those defending “free speech.” I do see their point.
But history should teach you something. And current events as well. Beware. The exercise of “free speech” must come with responsibility. If it does not, and everything goes, then it will develop into mayhem. And that mayhem will cause physical consequences. And then, that free speech will lead to horrific acts.
Again, I do not have the answers. But I do know where this leads. And I can tell you this. It won’t only be about Jews, then. It will be about anyone who does not fit someone’s worldview.
So be my guest. Use “Nazi” wherever you like. Throw out all the “Gas the Jews” and “From the River to the Sea” you desire. Your speech is your responsibility.
But beware. This is not 1935. We fight back. And what is good for the goose is good for the gander, as the cliche goes. We will not be silent. You can no longer outshout or drown us in a sea of words and pictures. We do not live in ivory towers anymore. And we also will not be silent in the face of the heinous attacks made in the name of free speech. Do you know why? Because it is our freedom that is at stake.
Brilliant explanation and insights.
Very insightful. I appreciated reading the nuances you so eloquently point out.