John and I have inveighed against cancel culture many, many times in this space. Nobody should lose their job or face harassment over a slip of the tongue, an inartfully phrased statement, or an unpopular political belief. But should we extend the same tolerance toward people who profess support for Hamas in the wake of the October 7 attacks? John and I debate the question.
This is a clip from the episode that went out to paying subscribers on Monday. To get access to the full episode, as well as an ad-free podcast feed, Q&As, and other exclusive content and benefits, click below.
What is the relationship between the rights to free speech and free association? People are losing jobs and opportunities over statements ranging from trivial to heinous.
Nazis marching in Skokie is free speech. The KKK holding a parade is free speech. Peaceful pro Palestinian/Hamas/anti-Zinoist/anti-Semitic protests are free speech. That's easy.
However, when considering more subtle aspects of this question, analogize and personalize it.
Imagine if Twitter were around when the Tulsa Massacre occurred.
A doctor tweets, "It's a start! I'll do my part!" with alternating Klansmen and burning cross emojis. Should a black person trust that doctor?
In the best of circumstances, treatments often fail, and lawyers like to sue. Does this doctor's employer occur any liability for that tweet? If so, is that a firing offense? Should they shunt black patients to other, preferably black, doctors?
Now consider that the tweeter is an elementary school teacher. Again, do you want that person influencing children? Can they erect a shrine to Nathan Bedford Forrest in their classroom?
Last case: this person is a freelance coder. Should you refuse to hire him for an app update? Should you cancel his existing contract? Should you uninstall his previous work and start over?
Free speech reveals people for who they are. Free association allows others to treat them accordingly.
I have a hearing impairment so I pine for transcripts... but I got the gist of the discussion.
Over in Britain, we already have had restrictions on pro-Palestine demonstrations, as some were really ugly. We have no First Amendments, so, free speech is what the majority consensus is should be free, and one hopes that it remains decently free.
Here in Canada the CBC sent guidelines to its anchors and journalists to not call Hamas 'terrorists', and the government made its UN representative abstain on the condemnation of the October 7 attack, contributing to the motion failing, so there is where we are.
Nevertheless, my opinion about the issue of whether someone should be fired for expressing support for abominable acts is NO. In most cases. No, unless the expression includes a direct threat or incitement to violence, in which case I believe there are laws, even in your country, and it is not up to the civil society to punish or absolve.
No because I do not want to see people punished for what they say and believe, not the woke, not the Communists, not the Fascists, not the Nazis or the racist, not the Holocaust deniers. I want to see wrong and disgusting ideas expressed, and countered.
And I am fine with public outrage and condemnation of the support for revolting actions. In case of working places, where the opinion has been expressed publicly at the working place, I am fine with some form of censure (but not for stuff fished out of their X-Twitter accounts). These people need to be told that their behaviour is unacceptable. But that is it, unless it becomes a consistent and continuous advocacy of stuff like terrorism, violence, racism, sexism, religious prejudice at large (if it does, it becomes another matter, it interferes with the ability of the person, and the person's colleagues, to do their job).
It is different if the individuals are hired in positions where one of their jobs is to promote equanimity and fairness, or in teaching positions -- open, blunt, bigoted political statements by teaching personnel, especially when repeated, are detrimental to a balanced education. But I seem to understand that there are different and not uniform standards in the US about education, and so it is very much a matter of individual institutions.
But in most cases my reply is no. They should not be fired nor silenced. Even if they spit on the fresh graves of people I have known and loved, of people who believed in and struggled for a peaceful solution. Because I would like to know who they are; change their mind if I can, but at the very least be warned against their poison.
And in general because, once you make exception for some form of thought or verbal expression that you find ignoble, if you accept that it should be silenced and prosecuted, you make a precedent: you open the door for the time when a thought and expression of yours that others find ignoble shall be silenced and prosecuted.