Name: Free speech for me--but not for thee
ISBN: 9780060190064

Free speech for me--but not for thee

For years now, Nat Hentoff has been the best-known lay guardian of the magnificent spirit and letter of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. His principled advocacy of free expression for all seems to be needed more than ever today, at a time of appalling assaults on expression not only by traditional opponents on the political right - those offended by what they consider obscene or radical or otherwise taboo - but also from the left - radical feminists calling for the suppression of pornography, members of minorities banning language they consider psychologically damaging, and various other proponents of so-called political correctness. These more recently minted censors are now to be found within such former bastions of free speech as the universities and even the American Civil Liberties Union. This urgently important book is not a mere collection of legal cases; neither is it a history of free expression or a polemic from either left or right. It is rather a wide-ranging report on - and analysis of - the many kinds of conflicts throughout our country between the illusion that this is a land of unfettered free speech and the reality when that illusion is acted upon.

What Hacker News says

BrezaJun 2023

I miss Nat Hentoff. Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee feels prophetic now.

thread

rhakswDec 2022

> Yes, yes, but

The refrain "I believe in free speech, BUT" is so common that first amendment lawyers regularly joke about it [0] [1] [2].

"Free speech for me— but not for thee" is also the title of an excellent book by Nat Hentoff [3]

Personally I like how ACLU founder Roger Baldwin put it to historian Arthur Schlesigner, Jr.:

> Arthur: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?"

> Roger: "That's a classic argument, you know. That's what they said about the Nazis and the Communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress ‘em first. We're going to use their method before they can use it.

> Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it." [4]

[0] https://youtu.be/0ZpsiLX9_HY?t=419

[1] https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=736

[2] https://youtu.be/-ByRjHwknbc?t=1210

[3] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9...

[4] https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225

thread

rhakswDec 2022

> I think there might be a reason two sides aren't talking.

Both sides can certainly find a reason not to speak to each other. The left claims the right is hateful, the right claims the left is obscene. It's always been like that, with one having the power to censor the other.

Here's an example [1]. One side, a well known entrepeneur/investor, is arguing for no censorship, and the other side, a well known disinformation researcher [2], argues for limits of the reach of certain content. One has blocked the other, so they no longer communicate directly.

Five years ago, someone at Twitter might have observed this interaction and decided, "I'm going to secretly action content. That will satisfy both the disinfo labeler and the anti-censorship crowd." Yet in doing so, as we can see, nobody is satisfied. They're still not talking to each other, and they don't understand why. The reason is due to the secrecy built into all of these platforms where an unknown third party is actioning content without anyone involved in the conversation knowing about it.

See also Free speech for me--but not for thee : how the American left and right relentlessly censor each other [3] (Nat Hentoff, 1992)

[1] https://twitter.com/noUpside/status/1599532506252214272

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-f...

[3] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9...

thread

rhakswOct 2022

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where our ability to communicate across ideologies appears to be broken in many ways.

For example, in 1963 Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south, as a speaker. As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' arguments. To some, Yale appeared censorious. As Jonathan Rauch describes [2], that's not good for your case. Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. Wallace ran for president in 1968 and nearly forced a plurality which would have given him significantly more influence [3].

Early episodes of the podcast So to Speak [4] by FIRE can inform the direction that can get us talking again. Basically, open and civil discourse is the way. The podcast demonstrates, through interviews with free speech advocates, a bunch of examples showing why that is a good target to shoot for, and how to achieve it.

[1] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0T9XSG73kY&t=4889s

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace_1968_presidenti...

[4] https://www.thefire.org/category/newsdesk/so-to-speak/page/1...

thread

specialistOct 2022

Whoops. I owe you an apology.

I blindly accepted your claim that Wallace was not permitted to speak at Yale. That's not true. I regret not being more skeptical. I am fail. Please accept my most humble apology.

TLDR: Yale Political Union invites Wallace. President Kingman Brewster Jr blocks. Much drama. Including local black leaders and civil rights activists, who defended Wallace's appearance per principles of free speech and academic stuff. Brewster removes block. Two student groups reinvite Wallace. Wallace declines, though he did speak at other Ivy League schools.

Described more fully p104-106 in Hentoff's book "Free speech for me--but not for thee", which you cited.

Here's 4 more articles, to round out the reality-based version of that incident:

https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-de...

"Free Speech, Personified" NYT [2017] https://archive.ph/LvAHn About the 1963 incident, how Pauli Murray appealed to Brewster to let the white supremacist speak, and how Yale recommitted towards and continues to uphold free speech.

Blurb from 1963 about the incident. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/9/27/yale-provost-br...

Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale [1974?] https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-de...

FWIW, I now don't understand your other cites. [2] Is just common sense. [3] Unrelated. [4] Might be broken.

Though I do agree with Jack Newfield that mocking racists and neoreactionaries should be avoided. We now know that right wing partisans are personally insulted when their leader is criticized or mocked. (Probably something about having their identity wrapped up in the demagogue. Who knows.) So mockery just drives those partisans further away.

thread