We should distinguish between cases when a government punishes people for speech and cases when organizations terminate people for breaking contract obligations or breaking code of conduct established by the organization.
It is very wrong for a government to charge people for jokes or stupid insensitive statements. On the other hand a teacher making stupid immoral statements should not be allowed to influence students. Thus, firing a professor or a teacher for celebrating a murder is not a “hate speech punishment” but enforcing reasonable requirements for employees in positions of influence.
Unfortunately, the right has been primed for this overreaction by the authoritarian left of the past decade. We are all reaping the whirlwind they sowed with DEI, speech restraints/cancel culture, and their perversion of critical thinking, as well as the legal actions they took against everyone they could think of. These reactions by the administration are disgusting, illiberal, and likely unconstitutional. The president has chosen to surround himself with people who speak too quickly and go too far. No doubt that is also a reaction to the left’s constant attempts to prevent him from fulfilling his constitutional duties during both of his terms in office. I’m hoping that as the shock and sorrow over Kirk‘s assassination subside, attacks on free speech will also subside, but I am not confident. Just as the Democrats should have recognized what they were sowing, Republicans seem to be blind to the repercussions of their actions. Much like children reacting to getting the upper hand over the school yard bully, they are determined to beat the hell out of him, giving more than they ever got. I’m hoping that as the shock and sorrow over Kirk’s assassination subsides, attacks on free speech will also subside, but I am not confident. Just as the Democrats should have recognized what they were sowing, Republicans seem to be blind to what they are doing and the probable future repercussions.
The pure hatred being written on line at Jews is horrific. This isn't about free speech, this is about racist antisemites showing their hatred at people who have no recourse.
What do you say in response to these people? 'Actually I'm not a nazi" or "actually it's a bit deeper than just Oct. 7th.".
They dont care about reason. And if you leave the platform, they've won.
It’s astounding, isn’t it? I’m grateful for your wording, because the term “anti-Semitic” has lost much of its descriptive power. To keep myself informed, I finally forced myself to sit through an entire Candace Owens interview (with Neil Oliver), and I’m still recovering from the experience.
The latest Sam Harris essay was unintentionally bemusing—after twenty years of relentless religion-bashing, he openly confessed that he couldn’t dredge up a metaphor strong enough to capture the depravity of the internet. Really? I love Sam, but honestly… it’s as if the very word hell has slipped from his vocabulary. Scriptural language remains the only register with the force to meet that task. Sam's been great, but what the world needs now is another Dante. Or perhaps Peterson is the new Dante.
Free speech comes with responsibility. You don’t get to say the most heinous things gleefully and ghoulishly and think there will be no consequences. Private employers have a right to decide when employees don’t reflect their values. Schools and universities have the right to get rid of faculty that posts disgusting and murderous content and consider who will be teaching/influencing students. Nexstar has the right to decline programming that does not resonate with their audiences. The first amendment does not guarantee any one a late night talk show. Dear Jimmy has every right to seek a new platform for his biased bull sh*t.
This is not difficult. Freedom of speech applies to any speech that does not cross the line into violence. This includes hate speech, ugly speech, or really bad language. But none of this means that others are required to listen to you or to tolerate you. Neither are we required to provide you a platform. You must pay for any costs yourself, including the social costs of bad behavior.
If you are a professional such as a professor, schoolteacher, a doctor, or an engineer, you likely know you have limits on what you can say at work, as well as how you can dress and behave. Your employers expect you to behave as a professional at work and will not take it kindly if you behave badly in public or online if you are recognized. In other words, you are responsible for your actions and your words, and nobody has to tolerate your bad behavior. Most citizens are reasonably tolerant, but tolerance is not limitless, nor should it be.
Every adult in a civil society has limits placed on them that are often unspoken but they are there. Stray just a little from civil language and behavior, and you risk losing friends, jobs, and influence. Nobody has to put up with you. If you want a good job with benefits, you are going to have to behave in a civil manner. You will have to think about how your behavior off the job can still affect your employer's bottom line or cause them unwanted controversy.
I may be wrong but it seems like they used this as an excuse to cancel Jimmy Kimmel’s poorly rated show. I agree with above as a private employer terminating an employee is one thing but the government pushing is another because we know the democrats are just waiting to turn the tables when they return to power so free speech has to be the norm. And words are not violence. I fortunately did not see the video of the assignation but there is Charlie Kirk speaking in one second and a second later a bullet blowing through his neck. To say they are morally equivalent is preposterous.
in addition, this discussion doesn't explain that Nexstar has an obligation to ensure that what goes over their airwaves in in the public interest. Also, their viewers are NOT the LA/NYC viewers who support Kimmel's deeply progressive views. His comments were far from comedy to the ears of Nexstar viewers in the middle of the country, who likely resonate with the religious views of Charlie Kirk. Kimmel's remarks were indeed pointed, political and not in the least bit funny (he hasn't been funny in quite some time.) We all know where the line is drawn - as we've seen the last admin trample all over it (ie the Twitter files showed us how the government systematically set up orgs to hide their censorship.) My daughter's private high school did indeed pressure the "DEI" head to resign after he chose to comment on an alumni's post calling the assassination "Karma." This person has no business claiming to head ANYTHING with the name "inclusion" in it. He deserved to have been fired, and frankly shouldn't have been allowed to resign. Education seems to love to hide the failings of teachers, and like the church did with priests, they just shuffle them from one school to another.. But that's a rant for a different day..
Brendan Carr came across like a guy bragging at his local, not like a professional responsible for an important government agency. 🙄 Not ready for prime time. *pun intended*
Similarly, Pam Bondi should have learned to parse her words more carefully long before now. I understand the impetus to respond quickly to such an obscene act, but threatening guaranteed civil liberties was not the response the head of the DOJ should make.
As others have stated, one's professional image impacts one's employment status. Whether it is in journalism, medicine, the law, or education, there are implicit and explicit standards of behavior. There was a time when one would have been hard-pressed to guess for whom a grade school teacher or journalist had voted. It was almost a point of pride. The dismissal of or denying tenure to professors for not "holding the right views," has not been good for societies. There is a line of decorum, though, that is for each organization to determine. It is best that the expectations are clear ahead of time, but the final decision about one's brand belongs to the organization. For example, some college sports programs tolerate DUIs, some don't.
I agree with the principle of being quiet until one has thought through anything. Words spoken cannot be unspoken. More information may change one's perspective and the "knowing what we know now," disclaimer is lazy and lame.
I like this quote:
"My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry..." (James 1:19)
In this age of constant notifications, updates, and takes, generations have been conditioned to respond/react immediately, leading with emotion. Make it a draft. Go eat dinner with a friend. Then decide if it's on brand for you. If you aren't sure, hold back.
In some instances parents complained that their child’s teacher posted vulgar things that went beyond tolerable. Some leftists posted “all MAGA needs to be killed.” & “who’s next? Matt Walsh or Ben Shapiro?” I could give you dozens of examples. These leftists are free to speak freely, but don’t expect everyone to put up with it! Should I start fearing for my life? I agree that politicians need to stay out of it unless someone is threatened and there have been plenty of instances of threats “Let’s kill his wife and kids and his parents and his whole family”! This is unacceptable!!
despite being physically unable to pronounce his name properly, I second the motion. Perhaps they can combine forces and build up a $200M media company!!!
No, there is no such thing as hate speech. There is "hateful" speech and yes, it is protected under the First amendment. However, words have meaning, and to a person who hates another person - well, dems fightin' words. There is no shortage of hateful people who utter hateful speech and you cannot deny the fact that hateful speech can be used to incite other hateful people to commit acts of violence. Trying to separate the two is illogical, inexcusable and immoral. It's pure cause and effect.
Ask any black person who has been called a nigger if that's not hateful speech. Ask any Jew whose been called a kike if that's not hateful speech. Ask any Republican whose been called a fascist if that's not hateful speech. All protected under the First amendment, right? You bet.
The law requires 3 behaviors to establish commision of a crime: means, motive, opportunity. Hateful speech is ALWAYS used to generate motive and to motivate others to hateful action. Robinson's "motive" words were “I had enough of his hatred", and “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”. Then came “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it,”. The means was the rifle.
Hate is taught. It's NOT normal human behavior like love. Who taught Robinson to hate? Who taught any of you to hate?
It would be good to get an understanding from the author or Konstantin, of what can be done/should be done about words influencing behaviour....as much as this is admitted in the article, that words can create permission structures for violence, there is no suggestion of what should be done about that other than engage and hopefully influence people to not say those things...what about a consequence for those that do, and it does result in violence, even though the words may not be direct incitement....?
Mr. Kisin, what you are missing is the word provocation. What if you said "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still have my podcast", or what if you said "sure I'like to bang a 24 year old maybe even younger", string em up, or you're next (said against a rival with meaning and resouces to do it). I am not for assinations but neither am I for provocation, this is why we have laws. But no more, with help of people like kirk who project the mentality of just authority when he preaches lies to vacuous minds like first year college kids who have no idea about the world.
Excellent essay. Thanks. In light of Trumps impulse control issues, it's been heartening to see robust and widespread pushback, against state censorship, from many conservatives and other pro-speech commentators. It's also been most revealing to witness this latest glimpse into the cryptic mentality that is seducing our liberals.
I wonder KK if there is some merit in this argument (below) which seems to run parallel to the question of “Is there such a thing as hate speech?”
Bullying is not culture, it is human nature. Two decades of daily anti-bullying policies is enough. If we want to help children and adults we should be teaching people how not to be victims. There are entire cultures that are bully-free - not bc they are anti-bully but because they teach people not to be victims. Eg: Ladakh, a region of the Himalayas adjacent to Tibet. The Ladakhis do not promote the foolish idea that they are entitled to a life in which no one is mean to them. Instead, they teach people not to get angry when people are mean to them or when bad things happen to them. The Ladakhis say “What’s the point of getting angry?” In their culture they stigmatise victims. Their most serious insult translates as: “One who angers easily”. We are teaching everyone that bullying is horrible, abnormal and we should be outraged, that bullies should be punished.
Isn’t the left teaching that you do not need to put up with dissonant ideas. That instead of trying to understand and seek commonalities- you can lash, rage and harm the person who challenges your views?
As a teacher of teenagers here in Australia I champion critical thinking skills, resilience, sitting with discomfort, recognition that there is often more than two sides to a story and earnest determination to understand where the other side is coming from.
We should distinguish between cases when a government punishes people for speech and cases when organizations terminate people for breaking contract obligations or breaking code of conduct established by the organization.
It is very wrong for a government to charge people for jokes or stupid insensitive statements. On the other hand a teacher making stupid immoral statements should not be allowed to influence students. Thus, firing a professor or a teacher for celebrating a murder is not a “hate speech punishment” but enforcing reasonable requirements for employees in positions of influence.
This is absolutely correct and the only flaw I see in an otherwise quite astute article
Unfortunately, the right has been primed for this overreaction by the authoritarian left of the past decade. We are all reaping the whirlwind they sowed with DEI, speech restraints/cancel culture, and their perversion of critical thinking, as well as the legal actions they took against everyone they could think of. These reactions by the administration are disgusting, illiberal, and likely unconstitutional. The president has chosen to surround himself with people who speak too quickly and go too far. No doubt that is also a reaction to the left’s constant attempts to prevent him from fulfilling his constitutional duties during both of his terms in office. I’m hoping that as the shock and sorrow over Kirk‘s assassination subside, attacks on free speech will also subside, but I am not confident. Just as the Democrats should have recognized what they were sowing, Republicans seem to be blind to the repercussions of their actions. Much like children reacting to getting the upper hand over the school yard bully, they are determined to beat the hell out of him, giving more than they ever got. I’m hoping that as the shock and sorrow over Kirk’s assassination subsides, attacks on free speech will also subside, but I am not confident. Just as the Democrats should have recognized what they were sowing, Republicans seem to be blind to what they are doing and the probable future repercussions.
The pure hatred being written on line at Jews is horrific. This isn't about free speech, this is about racist antisemites showing their hatred at people who have no recourse.
What do you say in response to these people? 'Actually I'm not a nazi" or "actually it's a bit deeper than just Oct. 7th.".
They dont care about reason. And if you leave the platform, they've won.
It’s astounding, isn’t it? I’m grateful for your wording, because the term “anti-Semitic” has lost much of its descriptive power. To keep myself informed, I finally forced myself to sit through an entire Candace Owens interview (with Neil Oliver), and I’m still recovering from the experience.
The latest Sam Harris essay was unintentionally bemusing—after twenty years of relentless religion-bashing, he openly confessed that he couldn’t dredge up a metaphor strong enough to capture the depravity of the internet. Really? I love Sam, but honestly… it’s as if the very word hell has slipped from his vocabulary. Scriptural language remains the only register with the force to meet that task. Sam's been great, but what the world needs now is another Dante. Or perhaps Peterson is the new Dante.
Sam's not all that great, he completely lost his mind over TDS and covid...
I'd love nothing more than talking to people with opposing views. Sadly, they refuse to engage, and it's me who ends up ostracised.
Free speech comes with responsibility. You don’t get to say the most heinous things gleefully and ghoulishly and think there will be no consequences. Private employers have a right to decide when employees don’t reflect their values. Schools and universities have the right to get rid of faculty that posts disgusting and murderous content and consider who will be teaching/influencing students. Nexstar has the right to decline programming that does not resonate with their audiences. The first amendment does not guarantee any one a late night talk show. Dear Jimmy has every right to seek a new platform for his biased bull sh*t.
This is not difficult. Freedom of speech applies to any speech that does not cross the line into violence. This includes hate speech, ugly speech, or really bad language. But none of this means that others are required to listen to you or to tolerate you. Neither are we required to provide you a platform. You must pay for any costs yourself, including the social costs of bad behavior.
If you are a professional such as a professor, schoolteacher, a doctor, or an engineer, you likely know you have limits on what you can say at work, as well as how you can dress and behave. Your employers expect you to behave as a professional at work and will not take it kindly if you behave badly in public or online if you are recognized. In other words, you are responsible for your actions and your words, and nobody has to tolerate your bad behavior. Most citizens are reasonably tolerant, but tolerance is not limitless, nor should it be.
Every adult in a civil society has limits placed on them that are often unspoken but they are there. Stray just a little from civil language and behavior, and you risk losing friends, jobs, and influence. Nobody has to put up with you. If you want a good job with benefits, you are going to have to behave in a civil manner. You will have to think about how your behavior off the job can still affect your employer's bottom line or cause them unwanted controversy.
I may be wrong but it seems like they used this as an excuse to cancel Jimmy Kimmel’s poorly rated show. I agree with above as a private employer terminating an employee is one thing but the government pushing is another because we know the democrats are just waiting to turn the tables when they return to power so free speech has to be the norm. And words are not violence. I fortunately did not see the video of the assignation but there is Charlie Kirk speaking in one second and a second later a bullet blowing through his neck. To say they are morally equivalent is preposterous.
in addition, this discussion doesn't explain that Nexstar has an obligation to ensure that what goes over their airwaves in in the public interest. Also, their viewers are NOT the LA/NYC viewers who support Kimmel's deeply progressive views. His comments were far from comedy to the ears of Nexstar viewers in the middle of the country, who likely resonate with the religious views of Charlie Kirk. Kimmel's remarks were indeed pointed, political and not in the least bit funny (he hasn't been funny in quite some time.) We all know where the line is drawn - as we've seen the last admin trample all over it (ie the Twitter files showed us how the government systematically set up orgs to hide their censorship.) My daughter's private high school did indeed pressure the "DEI" head to resign after he chose to comment on an alumni's post calling the assassination "Karma." This person has no business claiming to head ANYTHING with the name "inclusion" in it. He deserved to have been fired, and frankly shouldn't have been allowed to resign. Education seems to love to hide the failings of teachers, and like the church did with priests, they just shuffle them from one school to another.. But that's a rant for a different day..
But an entirely valid one!
Brendan Carr came across like a guy bragging at his local, not like a professional responsible for an important government agency. 🙄 Not ready for prime time. *pun intended*
Similarly, Pam Bondi should have learned to parse her words more carefully long before now. I understand the impetus to respond quickly to such an obscene act, but threatening guaranteed civil liberties was not the response the head of the DOJ should make.
As others have stated, one's professional image impacts one's employment status. Whether it is in journalism, medicine, the law, or education, there are implicit and explicit standards of behavior. There was a time when one would have been hard-pressed to guess for whom a grade school teacher or journalist had voted. It was almost a point of pride. The dismissal of or denying tenure to professors for not "holding the right views," has not been good for societies. There is a line of decorum, though, that is for each organization to determine. It is best that the expectations are clear ahead of time, but the final decision about one's brand belongs to the organization. For example, some college sports programs tolerate DUIs, some don't.
I agree with the principle of being quiet until one has thought through anything. Words spoken cannot be unspoken. More information may change one's perspective and the "knowing what we know now," disclaimer is lazy and lame.
I like this quote:
"My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry..." (James 1:19)
In this age of constant notifications, updates, and takes, generations have been conditioned to respond/react immediately, leading with emotion. Make it a draft. Go eat dinner with a friend. Then decide if it's on brand for you. If you aren't sure, hold back.
another fantastic rant. bravo.
In some instances parents complained that their child’s teacher posted vulgar things that went beyond tolerable. Some leftists posted “all MAGA needs to be killed.” & “who’s next? Matt Walsh or Ben Shapiro?” I could give you dozens of examples. These leftists are free to speak freely, but don’t expect everyone to put up with it! Should I start fearing for my life? I agree that politicians need to stay out of it unless someone is threatened and there have been plenty of instances of threats “Let’s kill his wife and kids and his parents and his whole family”! This is unacceptable!!
Hate speech is speech you hate. What else could it be?
Please have Mr. Volodzko write more for your substack.
despite being physically unable to pronounce his name properly, I second the motion. Perhaps they can combine forces and build up a $200M media company!!!
PROVE ME WRONG!
No, there is no such thing as hate speech. There is "hateful" speech and yes, it is protected under the First amendment. However, words have meaning, and to a person who hates another person - well, dems fightin' words. There is no shortage of hateful people who utter hateful speech and you cannot deny the fact that hateful speech can be used to incite other hateful people to commit acts of violence. Trying to separate the two is illogical, inexcusable and immoral. It's pure cause and effect.
Ask any black person who has been called a nigger if that's not hateful speech. Ask any Jew whose been called a kike if that's not hateful speech. Ask any Republican whose been called a fascist if that's not hateful speech. All protected under the First amendment, right? You bet.
The law requires 3 behaviors to establish commision of a crime: means, motive, opportunity. Hateful speech is ALWAYS used to generate motive and to motivate others to hateful action. Robinson's "motive" words were “I had enough of his hatred", and “Some hate can’t be negotiated out.”. Then came “I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk and I’m going to take it,”. The means was the rifle.
Hate is taught. It's NOT normal human behavior like love. Who taught Robinson to hate? Who taught any of you to hate?
It would be good to get an understanding from the author or Konstantin, of what can be done/should be done about words influencing behaviour....as much as this is admitted in the article, that words can create permission structures for violence, there is no suggestion of what should be done about that other than engage and hopefully influence people to not say those things...what about a consequence for those that do, and it does result in violence, even though the words may not be direct incitement....?
Mr. Kisin, what you are missing is the word provocation. What if you said "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and still have my podcast", or what if you said "sure I'like to bang a 24 year old maybe even younger", string em up, or you're next (said against a rival with meaning and resouces to do it). I am not for assinations but neither am I for provocation, this is why we have laws. But no more, with help of people like kirk who project the mentality of just authority when he preaches lies to vacuous minds like first year college kids who have no idea about the world.
Excellent essay. Thanks. In light of Trumps impulse control issues, it's been heartening to see robust and widespread pushback, against state censorship, from many conservatives and other pro-speech commentators. It's also been most revealing to witness this latest glimpse into the cryptic mentality that is seducing our liberals.
I wonder KK if there is some merit in this argument (below) which seems to run parallel to the question of “Is there such a thing as hate speech?”
Bullying is not culture, it is human nature. Two decades of daily anti-bullying policies is enough. If we want to help children and adults we should be teaching people how not to be victims. There are entire cultures that are bully-free - not bc they are anti-bully but because they teach people not to be victims. Eg: Ladakh, a region of the Himalayas adjacent to Tibet. The Ladakhis do not promote the foolish idea that they are entitled to a life in which no one is mean to them. Instead, they teach people not to get angry when people are mean to them or when bad things happen to them. The Ladakhis say “What’s the point of getting angry?” In their culture they stigmatise victims. Their most serious insult translates as: “One who angers easily”. We are teaching everyone that bullying is horrible, abnormal and we should be outraged, that bullies should be punished.
Isn’t the left teaching that you do not need to put up with dissonant ideas. That instead of trying to understand and seek commonalities- you can lash, rage and harm the person who challenges your views?
As a teacher of teenagers here in Australia I champion critical thinking skills, resilience, sitting with discomfort, recognition that there is often more than two sides to a story and earnest determination to understand where the other side is coming from.