A couple of ironic bits about the Harper's letter: 1. they are condemning ... the very thing they are supporting .... speech. They want controlled speech without consequence. That's just not how speech works. Enough people pipe up, there are consequences harpers.org/a-letter-on-ju…
2. I am against government censorship of speech. It is good to be confronted with some degree of diversity of opinion and difference. But liberalism ideology around speech & free speech is often damn naive and needs an upgrade and Harper's letter clings to the naive version.
3. Speech has consequences. That's why things happen with words. That's why Aristotle identified rhetoric as a powerful weapon. That's why speech can wound. That's why people fight against hate speech. That's why we change our norms around speech.
4. We don't accept certain words anymore because they wound. Or to take another example, Susan Sontag long ago argued persuasively that cancer metaphors imputed shame on cancer patients and implored stop using cancer metaphors.
5. Just yesterday, I asked one of the @HackCurio authors to drop the phrase cancerous x because I don't think we should be draping cancer in shame. Is that censorship? No, that's using speech to be thoughtful about the consequences of speech.
6. For one of the more thoughtful books on the intellectual history and problem with naive free speech extremism, I recommend John Durham Peter's book Courting the Abyss amazon.ca/Courting-Abyss…
7. To finish, there are problems with outrage that spirals out of control but I see this more as an issue having to do with our media infrastructure rather than what gets boxed a bit too simplistically as cancel culture. @zephoria work here on context collapse is relevant
8. Another relevant body of work is by @ananny who asks us to rethink how free speech and speech works under different media infrastructures. Speech has I noted has consequences. But speech has different consequences based on media and medium.
9. Whether it is the use of the vernacular by Luther or the ability only to tweet 140 characters or the fact that algorithms bump up what I see or don't see or I can go on and on, these also shape the consequences of speech.
10. In my teaching, I try to demonstrate why free speech matters tying it to questions of government censorship and whistleblowing (because this is the speech I want to protect and whistleblowers get ... hammered by corporations and the state) and yet why this support
11. Doesn't mean anything goes in society around speech and I use examples around disability, racism and queer rights to exemplify why we change our norms around speech and why it's part of a free speech tradition to push against hate speech and how such speech wounds
12. Here scholars like @daniellecitron are stands outs. Civil rights are necessary for free speech rights. They go hand in hand and must be weighed against each other.
13. I have no easy answers for some of the problems of speech in our new democratized media environment but finger-pointing to lefties engaging in critical speech (much of it I agree with, a small portion I don't) is not helpful and plays into the hands of the far-right
14. But I do make this a focus on my teaching as the power of language and the limits and power of free speech are not obvious, especially given a folk theory of language (i.e. liberal ideology) that downplays some of the consequences of free speech as it overplays others.
15. What I mean is that the marketplace of ideas does not work as purported (good ideas or the truth don't just dominate if given enough air time) and speech without some social restraint can also perpetuate harms, as critical race scholars have shown again and again.
16. Speech is mind-blowingly complicated ... and providing our students some of the tools to see this power and the variable mechanics of speech under different institutions (the university, journalism) and different media (twitter, anonymous pamphlet and more) is essential
17. To finish... I now have to decide whether to renew or cancel my @Harpers subscription and yes, their letter (and their annoying constant publication of Lionel Shriver) will factor into my decision because speech, my friends, has consequences. 
18. Actually not done: I went on a dog walk & walking spurs ideas and I wanted to finish on a practical note that shows a different way/side that this so-called "cancel culture" happening right here, right now from two very different corners of my world: geeks & anthropologists
19. So first: some positions say by JKR are not going to change & not worth debating. Best to ignore her/push back against her. It's tiresome. But back to my proposition that social media infrastructure can create new issues and predicaments and mistakes happen.
20. The question is what to do when mistkaes and efffups do happen & in my anthro corner we had a fairly big controversy that unfolded on #anthrotwitter with a lot of very legitimate critiques that were taken to heart and produced something quite exceptional (in a good way).
21. Background: March 2020, one of the flagship journals in Anthropology publishes an issue with an image of Margaret Mead next to painted (and stolen skulls). This is not ok for many reasons and seen as many as an act of violence
22. The image was published as part of a section challenging white supremacy and so done with the best of intentions. But saying so or making that link is still not enough and yet this case did not devovlve into an example of "cancel culture" even as there was strong pushback
23. Why? Well, part of the reason is how the critique was handled, which can be found in this interview and apology published in the wake of the critique by @yarimarbonilla and the editor of American ANthropologist, Deborah Thompson. americananthropologist.org/2020/06/29/an-…
24. I really recommend it for so many reasons. You will learn a bit about anthropology (and it's deep histories with colonialism). You will read about fucking up in public, and learn how it was (imho) handled with grace and honesty and difficulty.
25. Shit blows up. Often for good reasons and/or amplified in out of control ways by social media. In many cases, it's an occasion to do that hard work that was done in that interview and while it likely did not satisfy everyone, it was a good faith effort to respond to a problem
26. And the interview also was an occasion too to give voice to an editor who has done so much to move the journal into a much better, less racist place and a reminder to honor that work. But look where this happened. Not on Twitter but as a response to Twitter.
27. Now to a very different world, the geek and hacker world, my area of study (and free speech being a topic, surprise surprise), I've studied.
28. So many geeks & hackers are into civil liberties.. They write the tools that ensure privacy or are really into free speech. THis is bread and butter for them. Some even risk a lot by whistleblowing and are paying or have paid the steep price for doing so.
29. In the last decade but especially five years, we've seen the proliferation of codes of conduct and diversity + inclusion initiatives and most recently attention to language use, including racist/problematic language.
30. The tide, at least in the quarters I follow, free software, security, hacktivist types, & public interest hackers is to change the language. You see it in small & big ways. Respected hackers like @dinodaizovi encouraging others to rethink terminology:
31. And more substantial efforts like this @ietf working document "Terminology, Power and Inclusive Language" spearhead by @MalloryKnodel [which is awesome for teaching] tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kno…
32. I see the tide shifting and I want to encourage it. I am highlighting it here because it's a great example of how to be into some aspects of free speech (support whistleblowing, fighting gov censorship) without needing to support all types of speech.
New version here:
