Et Capital Culture
1.3 Social Censorship
Deplatforming is a privately organized effort to cancel a speaking event or “shout down” a speaker. It is a social regulatory instrument organic to democratic civil society. When citizens are protected from government censorship, it is up to the citizenry to censor ‘itself’ within the bounds of the law. It is also up to the citizens who face social censorship to concede to the pressure or challenge it. The law, the citizen censors and subject citizens contribute to x discourse, either making it more inclusive or more exclusive. Deplatforming is de facto censorship.
Many people today genuinely believe that deplatforming is not censorship, but they are mistaken. Deplatforming is censorship both in motivation and result. It is motivated by the desire to restrict select persons from speaking and even prohibit select words from being uttered. Deplatforming results in the restraint of a speaker.
There are attempts to make certain discourses exclusive to one’s race, gender or sexual orientation. There are also attempts to prohibit certain persons from discourses based on past work or philosophical orientation, regardless of present work or philosophical orientation. Without considering the justifications for the attempts it stands that as a matter of principle the motivations and results are restrictive and censorious.
Deplatforming results in the restraint of utterance prior to or during the occasion of speech. Since the action is nongovernmental and organic to the locality or group, it is social. Hence, deplatforming is social censorship. Social censorship is not unique to our time. In later articles, we will survey historical precedents, but for now we focus on the current state of affairs. Let us see why proponents of deplatforming do not think they engage in acts of censorship.
Proponents of depatforming argue that civil discourse must maintain an unfailing commitment to a set of basic incontrovertible principles: (purportedly) tolerance, equality and justice. A discourse that either directly or indirectly promotes skepticism about that set of principles is subject to deplatforming measures. Further, if a speaker is said to have undermined said principles in any way and at any time, then their contributions to the discourse are unacceptable.
​
After the Middlebury fiasco, students from the university wrote an open letter to explain their point of view to a critical public. The arguments in the letter are common to those who deplatform. The students affirm that free speech is essential to civil growth, but also that some speech ought not to be uttered. Besides speech that is already prohibited by law, they argue that some ideas and speech ought to be countered with socially organized attempts of disruption (some proponents petition for institutionalized censorship on the basis of so-called hate speech, which we will review later). Proponents say these acts of disruption are expressions of free speech.
Two main concerns motivate deplatforming. First, they desire to guard individuals who are emotionally vulnerable to the topic or idea discussed. Second, they desire to filter the civil discourse so as not to promote bad ideas among folks vulnerable to believe them. In any case, deplatforming is principally motivated to protect certain folks from feeling badly and bad ideas.
​
In Book II of The Republic Socrates argues in favor of censorship. Those who deplatform are akin to Socrates’ “founders” who “supervise our storytellers” and filter out bad stories.[1] Both are oriented to protect the impressionable youth from bad stories in order to prevent them from holding bad ideas before they become “ineradicable and unchangeable.”[2] The high stakes justify the acts of censorship. [3] Socrates’ “founders” and those who deplatform, supervise and censor in order to filter out purportedly bad stories before they affect the minds of impressionable folks.
​
Those who deplatform maintain that they are in favor of free speech as long as it passes their filter. In the open letter, the Middlebury students argue that civil discourse requires free exchange. However, they also claim that free exchange can be rejected if the speech in question betrays the aforementioned set of basic principles. On the one hand, they write, “Genuine higher learning is possible only where free, reasoned, and civil speech and discussion are respected.” However, they also write, “A commitment to open-mindedness is compatible with the decision to reject intolerance.”[4] If rejection results in disruption, in this case meaning deplatforming, then we are witness to social censorship. We are also witness to the reason why people who engage in deplatforming think they are not enacting social censorship. Instead, the descendants of Socrates think that they have a right and even an obligation to filter the information disseminated within the polis in order to facilitate the ‘right’ kind of education to promote the ‘right’ kind of society.
​
Abiding by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s description of Dr. Douglas A. Murray, the students asserted that Dr. Murray’s work promotes “bigotry… with no solid factual foundation.” Further, they think that Dr. Murray’s work undermines the idea of equality and so “paves the way for hate and prejudice.”[5] Whether or not the Southern Poverty Law Center accurately characterizes Dr. Murray’s work is besides the point of this article. Galvanized by the characterization, the students were motivated to disrupt the speaking event. As Socrates’ descendants they thought that Dr. Murray was unworthy of a platform and so attempted to filter it out by disrupting it.
Though they failed to end the event and failed to restrain their violent few (resulting in the injuries of Professor Allison Stanger), the students maintained their claim, writing, “We mustn’t be required to ‘hear both sides’ when one side seeks to undermine the core values of a free, democratic society.”[6] Again, the basic set of principles is the principal concern of those who deplatform. The student’s statements can be misleading though. Deplatforming doesn’t just reject intolerance or advise abstention from speaking events. Deplatforming is an imposition of values. It is an exercise of power within a limited social and legal environment. But again and again, proponents of deplatforming do not think that this act of disruption is censorship. Instead, they think they are simply exercising their free speech.
​
In 2017, provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos arrived in Berkeley at the invitation of the Berkeley College Republicans, a campus sanctioned club. Students and other local activists demonstrated in opposition to the event. The demonstration turned destructive and caused what reports say cost $100,000 worth of damages. [7] When asked why they were demonstrating, one unnamed demonstrator said, “Milo’s hate speech is not allowed here. When it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down.”[8] By this logic, free speech is capable of silencing other free speech. The American citizenry is free to have shouting matches and protests. The demonstrators succeeded and the event was shut down.
​
Professors also argue in favor of deplatforming. Professor Allison Stanger found this to be the case at Middlebury. She testified before the Senate, “some students believed that shutting down speech was a means to social justice. Some Middlebury faculty shared that view, thereby encouraging radical action.”[9] In the Berkeley case, Professor Wendy Brown of UC Berkeley said later, “We can support free speech without choosing to host those who…trample the principles of equality and respect.” Professor Brown praises the merit of free discourse while also promoting limited access vis-a-vis deplatforming. A transgression against the set of principles is justification for deplatforming. As Socrates’ founders, “Students act as de facto arbiters of free expression on campus.”[10]
​
Transgressions against the set of principles are often characterized in terms of “hate speech.’ Hate speech is defined as derogatory speech directed at an identity. The Brookings Institute found that 40% of college students they surveyed believe that “hate speech” is not protected under the First Amendment.[11] Legally speaking, they are incorrect. When the question is posed to lawyers, most lawyers that is, the truth is affirmed. For example, Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA is reported to say, “‘There is no legal concept of hate speech, no exception to the First Amendment,’ any more than there is for “unpatriotic speech, unpleasant speech or rude speech.'"[12] Nadine Strossen, former President of the American Civil Liberties Union, testified before the Senatorial Committee on “Free Speech on College Campuses,” explaining the discrepancy:
“everybody is in favor of free speech, but they have very different concepts as to what freedom of speech actually entails, and most people usually have a ‘‘but.’’ They say, ‘‘I believe in freedom of speech, but the one exception I want to make is’’—and very often, we have heard even lawyers... and other political leaders have said, ‘‘Hate speech is not free speech.’’
The government is largely restricted from declaring hate speech illegal. Later in the hearing Mrs. Strossen reminds the senators that the government must maintain “viewpoint neutrality…never pick and choose which particular viewpoints to favor or to disapprove, no matter how deeply despised certain views might be.”[13] Mrs. Strossen explains to Senator Kaine, “in this country, we used to say any speech that has a bad tendency, that might at some point in the future lead to something harmful. That was what was used to shut down abolitionist speech and civil rights speech and anti-war speech —anything that was unpopular."[14] When the government was used to enact de jure censorship, citizens were fined, arrested and silenced. By this logic, hate speech is permissible despite its unpopularity, because the affect of de jure censorship (in this case enforcing hate speech laws) will likely be used to silence dissent and stifle social reform.
​
Within the scope of government censorship, deplatforming is mostly like “prior restraint,” a very serious form of censorship. Prior restraint means as it sounds: the government prohibits the speech in question before it goes public. One or more conditions must apply before the government exercises prior restraint. The speech must: (1) be designed to cause “imminent lawless action,” (2) be more than just an abstract idea, (3) present a “clear danger” to the welfare of others, (4) pose a threat to national security or (5) be obscene. Conditions for restricting and preemptively prohibiting speech are so strict (have become so over time), because it was abused in the past. The 1798 Alien and Sedition acts, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the 1918 Sedition act are apt examples of what government censorship looks like when it is enforced.[15]
​
In 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts were three laws authorizing the government powers to detain and deport foreign nationals and restrict speech. The political circumstances were tender as the young nation balanced radical domestic and foreign unrest. The recent memory of Shay’s Rebellion (1786-7), the Haitain Revolution (1791-1804), the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-94), the French Revolution (1792-1799) and the Jacobin Reign of Terror (1793-4) as well the French piracy of the American merchant marine (1796-1800) all contributed to the sense that a united nation was required in order to make it through the troubled time. President John Adams and the 5th Congress passed what they believed were necessary restrictions on speech. The 1798 law says:
If any person shall write, print, utter or publish… false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States… with intent to defame the said government… to bring them... into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them… the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition… shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.[16]
​
The 1798 law was used to prosecute 14 editors. Mathew Lyon, a congressman, was one of those who was prosecuted. The main question of debate was whether or not citizens were allowed to criticize the government. Likewise, the question revolved around whether or not the government could exercise prior restraint upon the citizenry. The sedition law expired in 1801 and those who were arrested were released. Criticism of the government was partially won.[17]
​
The Espionage Act of 1917 and its amendment known as the Sedition Act of 1918 were intended to consolidate American support for the First World War. The text of the 1918 made it illegal to:
willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States ...or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully ...urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production ...or advocate, teach, defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both...[18]
​
Over 2,000 people were prosecuted under the authority of these laws, including five time presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs. The National Archives Prologue Magazine detailed the story of how Debs, and presumably others, were followed, documented and prosecuted.[19] When at a speaking event in Ohio, US department of Justice agents were dispatched to document his speech. There, Debs declared:
They have always taught you that it is your patriotic duty to go to war and slaughter yourselves at their command. You have never had a voice in the war. The working class who make the sacrifices, who shed the blood, have never yet had a voice in declaring war.
That was enough. Two weeks later, Debs was arrested.
Unexpectedly, Debs made his own case in front of the jury pleading:
There is not a single falsehood in that speech. If there is a single statement in it that will not bear the light of truth, I will retract it. I will make all of the reparation in my power. But if what I said is true, and I believe it is, then whatever fate or fortune may have in store for me I shall preserve inviolate the integrity of my soul and stand by it to the end.
The jury ruled against him and he received a verdict for 10 years in prison. He would spend 21 months in prison until he was released Christmas day, 1921. This is a strong example of how the levers of power can be abused to coerce conformity of opinion.
Those who are deplatformed like Mr. Yiannopoulos and Dr. Murray go home free citizens. Those who are censored by the government like Mr. Debs are thrown into prison as unfree men. The distinction is clear. Deplatforming is a clash of free citizens engaging in shaping the sentiments of sociability. Socrates' modern founders attempt to censor their peers for reasons that they believe are justified. Such is the ebb and flow of the organic social regulation of discourse in a democratic civil society.[20]
​
Along these lines, Dom Caristi and William Davie argue that:
“Once the authority of prior restraint is removed and the censorial role is relieved, society can afford a judicious, public hearing of controversy.”[21]
In that “public hearing,” the ever-praised “marketplace of ideas” is encouraged to operate with very limited cases of government enforced prior restraint. Dr. Robert Zimmer, President of the University of Chicago, believes that free speech is necessary to properly educate and conduct research, “Otherwise, we will find ourselves on a path that is antithetical to fulfilling our highest aspirations.”[22][23]
​
Socrates’ founders believe that free expression is not imperative for a democratic civil society. In fact, the founders think that social censorship, maybe even government censorship, are tools to regulate the ideas of society. If the trend is to censor vis-a-vis organic social association, then the power need not be metered out by institutions. If the actions remain legal, then their power is liable firstly to social contest. This is the realm in which the sentiments of sociability are shaped. Insofar as the imposition of values remain limited to social exchanges, they retain authenticity unique to folk movements. Lastly, whatever resistance to social censorship happens we may cite Isaac Newton's third law: for every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The following article explains how Jean-Jacques Rousseau understands the so-called "sentiments of sociability" and how they fit into the social regulation of civil society.
​
Note On Corporate Deplatforming
​
You may have noticed that nothing has been said of digital platforms like YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. Deplatforming is certainly in play on digital platforms, but they are moderated by publicly traded corporations that qualify as private entities with private platforms/stages. While it may be worthwhile to revisit deplatforming by corporate moderators on their own platforms, it does not involve organic social civil action. It may affect what circulates within the public domain, and even mimic the activity of the Censor Board of WWI, but as it relates to our introduction to the Moral Economy, the dynamic of popular powers clashing to shape the sentiments of sociability, we reserve the topic to the more nuanced layer of the Moral Economy vis-a-vis the role of corporate responsibility and moral performance in reflecting organic civil action.
Much of this has to do with notions of honor and esteem. It concerns the traditional role of shame and praise in establishing social standing. Prestige is made up of the ethereal, yet present, allotment of shame or praise. The time-old effect of prestige in democratic politics concerns persuasion. If we consider prestige a meter of persuasive capacity, then we see that to shame select persons is an attempt to reduce their esteem and persuasive capacity. The traditional model of shame and pillory are at work when a group attempts to deplatform. In this sense, deplatforming is a conservative reactionary cause that uses shame or praise to shape behavior within a normative social code.
Or platitudes, says the pessimist.
For example, yelling “fire” in a movie theater when there is no fire or calling for “imminent lawless action” such as the looting of your neighborhood.
Janice Fiamengo describes how "angry students"disrupted her speaking events with fire alarms. Fire alarms were also set off when Professor Allison Stanger attempted to moderate Dr. Murray's lecture.
To be unnecessarily enthralled by a state of anguish caused by a word, image or topic.
So-called “unconscious biases” are believed to be waiting in the lie, ready to pounce upon unsuspecting folk.
Nevermind the argument that subjective experience is a more important concern than holding a debate:
”We contend that experiences and emotions are valid ways to see the world, and that the hegemony of rational thought-based perspective often found in a university setting limit our collective creativity, health, and potential. If we are to move from opinion to knowledge, it is truly imperative to listen, understand, and reflect upon the various lenses members of our community use to view the world.”
The Brookings Institute reported that 53% of students would like their campus to be free of some speech; 51% think that shouting down speakers is permissible behavior.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education’s (FIRE) rates 55 percent of colleges "clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech."Spotlight on Speech Codes 2015, FIRE, thefire.org/spotlight2015/.
The list of speakers being deplatformed is growing longer by the year: Christine Lagarde, Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Janice Fiamengo, George Will, Charles Murray, Robert Zoellick, Jon O’Brien, Julie Bindel, Condoleezza Rice, Germaine Greer to name a few.
The threat of violence is to be taken seriously. The Brookings Institute reported that 30% of male students, who took their survey said they would resort to violence to stop an event they disagreed with. If we remind ourselves of Professor Stanger’s story, we should be dismayed. Indeed, threats continue to be made to other professors. For instance:
"Selina Todd, modern history professor at St Hilda's College, said members of staff accompanied her to lectures after learning of threats on social media.
It's always the case that groups' needs and interests can conflict with those of other equally legitimate groups," she said.
She continued: "This might sound like a storm in a teacup and something that's just about student activists but students become graduates and Oxford students tend to become graduates who go into things like politics, the media or the civil service."
BBC Editors. "Oxford professor given protection following threats from trans activists." BBC. January 25, 2020.
Though the rules are not absolutely clear that all people can equally engage in hate speech when their speech is derogatory and directed at an identity.
Consider the case of war.
Ron Paul:
“All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty… Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.”
May 22, 2007 - Issue: Vol. 153, No. 84 — Daily Edition 110th Congress (2007 - 2008) Page H5610.
The Censorship Board was created in 1917 and the US Post Office would not deliver mail or magazines that appeared to transgress the sedition laws.
Making hate speech illegal and enforceable by the government is worrisome on the front of the abuse of power.
Dr. Zimmer, President of the University of Chicago said in the same hearing on free speech, “This tension that gets articulated between inclusion issues on one hand and free speech issues on the other hand, I think, is honestly not the right line to draw. It conflates things that are different, and what we want is to be including all students and helping them learn that the power of the education that they’re going to have is going to be enhanced and defined by ongoing open challenge.”
Footnotes
1. Plato, The Republic. Edited by G.R.F. Ferrari. Translated by Tom Griffith. Cambridge University Press. 2000. (377b-c).
“When they tell a good story, we must decide in favor of it; and when they tell a bad one, we must decide against it.”
You can find Plato's Republic online in a PDF format for free.
2. ibid. (378e).
“The young are incapable of judging what is allegory and what is not, and the opinions they form at that age tend to be ineradicable and unchangeable.”
3. ibid. (379a).
“it is the founder’s job to know the patterns on which poets must model their stories, or be refused permission if they use different ones.”
4. "Broken Inquiry on Campus: A Response by a Collection of Middlebury Students." March 12, 2017.
https://brokeninquiryblog.wordpress.com/
5. ibid.
6. ibid.
7. Thomas Fuller. "A Free Speech Battle at the Birthplace of a Movement at Berkeley." New York Times. February 2, 2017.
We also consider the costs of hosting as exorbitant in some cases “Then there is the question of deliberately inflammatory speakers and the chaos that results when they show up. We saw that in Charlottesville. We saw it last week at the University of Florida— $600,000 spent on security, 1,000 law enforcement officials, the Governor declaring a state of emergency.”“Free Speech on College campuses”
https://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/exploring-free-speech-on-college-campuses
8. Bob Egelko. "Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech unwelcome in Berkeley, but protected by Constitution." San Francisco Chronicle. February 2, 2017.
9. Dr. Allison Stanger. “Free Speech on College campuses." Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. October 26, 2017.
https://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/exploring-free-speech-on-college-campuses
10. John Vellasoner. "Views among college students regarding the First Amendment: Results from a new survey" September 18, 2017. Brookings Institute.
11. ibid.
12. Bob Egelko. "Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech unwelcome in Berkeley, but protected by Constitution." San Francisco Chronicle. February 2, 2017.
13. Nadine Stosser. “Free Speech on College campuses." Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. October 26, 2017. 40.
14. Nadine Stosser. “Free Speech on College campuses." Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. October 26, 2017. 55.
15. Near v. Minnesota , 283 U.S. 697, 283 U.S. 697, 1 M.L.R. 1001 (1931); Brandenburg v US (“clear danger”); Yates v. US (more than abstract idea); Grosjean v. American Press C, 297 U.S. 233 (1936)
16. “An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled ‘An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States.’" Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), signed July 14, 1798. Transcriptions courtesy of the Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Accessed 6/23/2020.
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=16&page=transcript
17. Caristi, Dom and Davie, William R. Communication Law: Practical Applications in the Digital Age. Taylor & Francis Group: NY. 2018. 50.
18. United States, Statutes at Large, Washington, D.C., 1918, Vol. XL, pp 553 ff. A portion of the amendment to Section 3 of the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. The act was subsequently repealed in 1921; the 1917 act is still in effect today.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3903
19. Glenn V. Longacre. "Free Speech on Trial." Winter 2017–18, Vol. 49, no. 4. Prologue Magazine of the National Archives.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2017/winter/debs-canton
20. Some of the clarifying court cases establishing the rules for government censorship include Near v. Minnesota (prior restraint only justified if obscene, incites violence or harms national security) , Brandenburg v US (presents “clear danger”); Yates v. US (more than abstract idea) and Grosjean v. American Press (cannot issue a fee that cripples the publishers capacity to circulate media). These cases helped restrict the government’s capacity to proscribe speech.
21. Caristi, Dom and Davie, William R. Communication Law: Practical Applications in the Digital Age. Taylor & Francis Group: NY. 2018. 63.
22. Dr. Robert Zimmer. “Free Speech on College campuses." Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. October 26, 2017.
23. The Senate Committee hearing on free speech is worth checking out. Admittedly, in it politicians conflate issues and grandstand, but it is educational to see common viewpoints grappled with by people deeply involved in the preservation or the alteration of speech. Not relevant to our discussion here, I address briefly the topic of fees associated with hosting controversial speakers. It’s true, some universities can afford to pay for the security needed to maintain order. Other smaller universities may not be able to afford it.
Senator Alexander conflates the legal and social aspects of speech. He defines free speech as “the right to speak one’s mind without being silenced.” If this was true, then the government could have legal authority to intervene at Thanksgiving dinner tables all across the country, which would be absurd. The Senator then elaborates on the accepted point that the 1st amendment is the protection against laws limiting speech. Turning to the should, ought and would be nice, the Senator points out the main concern of the hearing:
Universities, especially, should be the place where people of different views may speak, audiences can listen, and many contrasting viewpoints are encouraged. There should be some sensible ways to allow that while still protecting freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
There is a question about whether the implied costs of hosting a controversial speaker are unduly burdensome. Senator Alexander cited, “ A recent survey by Brookings Institution found that nearly 20 percent of students believe it is acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes offensive and hurtful statements.” Given the potential for violence, universities are forced to make a corporate decision. Is the speech worth the cost of security? ($600,000 at the University of Florida) Is the risk of property damage worth it? ($100,000 at the University of California, Berkeley) Is the price worth it? Can a university choose not to host an event because they do not wish to incur the cost of security? This is the current crux of the Free Speech Debate.