"Our issue is very narrow. It's only around the question of whether taking down the website would be a violation of freedom of expression and we think that would be a violation."
Who is saying this, @PENCanada? Why jump on an Atwood strawman?
Who is saying this, @PENCanada? Why jump on an Atwood strawman?
Other than, you know... pen-international.org/who-we-are/pen…
*Of course* forcing them to delete the website would be wrong. But no one is trying to do that, or has the power to. People are calling for signatories to unsign voluntarily, or agree internally to take down the website (collectively unsign).
This is a muddy issues, for sure, but no one is denying anyone else the right to share their opinion - we're just disagreeing with each other, like, y'know, normal human beings in a free society...
In your statement you acknowledge the "chill" the letter can have on assault victims who might be considering coming forward, outlining very well why people are speaking out against the letter - thank you for doing that!
But then you come to this odd conclusion that people calling for the site to be taken down (i.e. signatories acknowledge the very harm you outlined, and agree to take down site) are somehow literally attempting to take the site down and violate others free speech?
Again, huh?
Why not just say "the signatories should do whatever they damn well want with their own website, and people who are mad about that can be as mad as they want, because this is a free country"? That seems in keeping with your principles.
And if you are worried about the historical record, oh honey, it's called the internet. This can be archived all over the place. That doesn't mean the site - as an *active protest document* - can't be voluntarily retired.
Right now the website is still a thing that is being said and said and said every day it's active (as you call it in your statement, "a living document"). That's not an archive.
And calling for it not to be taken down, at a moment when it is still very much "active", means you are injecting yourself in a political discussion in a way that feels inappropriate (not about the inalienable right to speak, but about what should be said).
When I ask for the website to be taken down, I am asking people to stop saying this hurtful thing. When signatories say "No, we'll keep it up" they are asserting their right to keep saying it. That's all fine.
But what is @PENCanada doing coming in and saying "yes, yes, keep saying it, PEN International VP and associates"? Why not "feel free to do what you want"? That's extremely odd.
Again, I get that the blurring of "active protest" and "online archive" into one website makes things confusing, and that's part of the problem here. But you should be able to navigate those nuances better than you do in your statement...
which is weird, and unnecessary, and will (you must know) be spun as support for Atwood's very divisive opinion and against people trying to speak out against the letter.
As you note in your statement "speech by those without power and privilege has often been relegated to the margins" - well, this will push us further to the margins.
I very much appreciate the work of @pen_int and @PENCanada, but involving yourself in this way in this discussion is quite embarrassing.
TO BE CLEAR THOUGH: go ahead and do it, it's your right. Definitely not trying to suggest otherwise. You can even sign the letter if you want.
(But please don't).
For context, the full @PENCanada statement: pencanada.ca/news/pen-canad…
