Thank you Tara for such an EXCELLENT PIECE . It is so extremely important to the future of Sub stack, our democracy, our country and even our world. No fascist state would ever allow the freedom of speech which we take for granted. So many of those leaning toward autocracy have no idea of what they're jeopardizing for short-term fantasies.
I wholeheartedly agree with going beyond Ben Franklin's guidelines to protect our freedom of speech and democracy - because he had no way of knowing how close our country would eventually get to leaping off the cliff's edge toward fascism.
"A platform that recognizes its debt to open discourse and democracy will do everything to protect the fragile environment that allows controversy to be safely aired. It will not “countenance” fascism, nor “promote” anything that “might do injury” to a person or to the democratic republic that preserves both our safety and our freedom to speak." Hear Yea, Hear Yea!
Thank you for this post. Ben Franklin — and you — sum up the issue well. The free speech argument is always thrown back at us by those who seek to spread hate and sow acts of violence against other humans, by those who would suppress freedom the instant they are given the opportunity. I think Substack has an obligation here, as a platform that encourages free speech and healthy discourse to set standards that at least match Franklin’s. That threshold is the bare minimum for a responsible platform.
Thank you for reading, Scott. I'm glad you brought up the word censorship. Franklin has a bit of fun with an 18th century English Licenser of the Press in the 1740 part of the link I provided in the essay and notes. He was not in favor of censorship (which he'd have understood as an official role). And this is what makes him such a useful study for us nowadays. It's worth reflecting on what it meant for him to champion free speech strongly, to poke fun at censorship, and still to have boundaries. If we aren't used to that, it's a good brainteaser.
'Who decides' is always an important question, never to be taken lightly, because we humans are prone to make mistakes, so we need to protect against very grave ones as much as possible.
For a media company, the owners have the final say in where they set the boundaries for their services (unless the boundaries violate someone's civil rights). The best writer's guidelines will not be vague (eg, "No fascism"); instead, a content director would take guiding principles to people who can help with specifics -- in this case, historians who know the archive of fascist communication in the 20th century. Historians would love to share what they know to prevent the disasters they've studied from happening again. A content director who consults with many knowledgeable people will make fewer mistakes than a director winging it from what they think they know.
In the context of current events (at Substack and otherwise), I have been thinking about this topic a great deal. As much as I personally abhor hate speech and fascist ideologies, I haven't been able, as yet, to settle on who gets to be the arbiter of the decision-making for what is approved and what is not. Of course, in private companies, the owners are generally permitted to do as they please. But as you point out here, it seems there are always exceptions to the rules. And what about public entities? That's where I lose my way. The way I see it, as soon as there is need for even one exception, the waters are muddied and the decision-making no longer impartial.
Elizabeth, thank you. These are challenging points. Public and private entities might reasonably follow different rules. Even though the First Amendment only guarantees that *Congress* will not infringe the right of free speech, that's sometimes interpreted to mean any public institution, I think. State universities are in a bigger pickle than Substack. As you may know, Ben Franklin favored self-regulation to state censorship, and he extended his self-regulation principles to his business, which made perfect sense to him, though today we are quick to call that censorship. Maybe just slowing down is enough to see a fresh way. The absence of any regulation, self or otherwise, would have seemed incompatible with democracy to the Founders. That does give me pause. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here on this not-at-all-simple subject!
Thank you, David, yes, Federalist 10 is right on point! That's what makes Franklin such a compelling figure for me on this issue. He and Madison both support liberty. Neither would take away any right of political dissent (the formation of "factions"), but that's different from taking away the ability of someone to intimidate and harass election workers or people of another race or religion. Ramona makes a good point: We don't need to protect the free speech of anyone whose avowed purpose is to take away other people's free speech. It's possible that we may be able to have a little less disease with a carefully limited cure.
I'll join you in "If only": What if no one obsessed over wrongthink at all, or paid it any attention? Neither amplified it nor infringed it? Would the worst human ideas (there will always be bad ideas) go away for lack of interest and lack of amplification?
Btw, Ol’ Ben’s definition of virtue could include a certain amount of adjustment when necessary. I am thinking of his essay on young men limiting their commerce d’amore to older women, for which he made eight arguments, all of which were more practical than salacious.
Ol' Ben knew his imperfections, which helped him lighten up on other peoples', yes? Maybe that's what helped him distinguish between errors everybody made and stronger stuff.
When I was young, I read his autobiography, still one of the best ever written, and I admired his attempt to perfect his character with his invention of a virtue ledger. I studied his approach carefully, hoping as a young idealist to do the same until I read the entire experiment. I sensed there was a twinkle in his eye as he wrote and it left me thinking it was probably okay to let Switter be Switter, with certain minor character flaws I have mostly managed to keep in the background over the years, thanks to his wise instruction. Not to say I won’t end up on the wrong side of the law, because while the chances of my going to prison are low, they are never zero.
I did a quick search for an excerpt from Franklin’s Autobiography about his effort to practice a select list of virtues. The Next button at the bottom of the page takes you to the ledger. https://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page38.htm
The term “religious nuts” covers a very broad swath. Religion comes in a lot of flavors lately, and much of it isn’t ennobling. Fortunately the worst of the secular religions from the last century have flamed out spectacularly except for the few hangers on whose miserable, empty lives are full of whatever dog’s breakfasts of ideas they can lap up. The Facists, the National Socialists, and the International Socialists after a century of murder on an epic scale are known for what they are. It’s safe to say they won’t rise up again, which is not to say some new idiotic ideology won’t rise up before it can be beaten down again. The Klan is finished. Nazis are finished. Communists are finished. Crying wolf about Nazis on Substack gives them the attention they crave, down there in their moms’ basements. It’s the only thing they have in their miserable, hateful little lives.
Tara, what you've written here, so key to this discussion. I, like @Mark VanLaeys below, extract your lines to quote because threat to the safety of others and the republic that "you have only if you can keep it" are at stake here and elsewhere: "A platform that recognizes its debt to open discourse and democracy will do everything to protect the fragile environment that allows controversy to be safely aired. It will not “countenance” fascism, nor “promote” anything that “might do injury” to a person or to the democratic republic that preserves both our safety and our freedom to speak."
Thank you, Mary. Franklin said so much that is germane to this debate. I didn't set out to make a whole post about one 1731 document, but in the end, everything he needed to say to us was all there in one list of ten statements. Thank you for Restacking!
I add this quote that I placed in Part one of "The Survivor's Dilemma" here: https://innerlifecollaborative.substack.com/p/the-survivor-dilemma Here's the quote: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me."
Thank you, Mary. That is such a chilling quotation, and your posts on Elie Wiesel make it clear why actually free speech, which includes free and fair elections, is a prize we do not want to lose.
I'd accept the "free speech" argument from our Substack overlords a little more easily, but they have their thumb on the scale, the right side of it at that.
Going after the money is not a politically neutral act. See Citizens United. It makes the platform whiter, righter, more Anglocentric, and less diverse.
If they want to be hands off, they need to take their thumb off the scale.
It has not escaped my attention that the "other" letter is cosigned by several people who Substack paid to come to the platform. Interesting that it preempted the other one, and that Substack has quoted it back. This piece of Astroturf looks like an inside job.
Bravo Tara! Your attention to detail in this essay is astounding. I have found the comments here equally amazing and I have learned a lot.
Mostly I am sad. Since I lean toward the all-people-are-good fairytale and I've not seen any of the Nazi writing on Substack with my own eyes I was hoping if I ignored it it would go away. It couldn't be true that this was happening on my beloved Substack. I then stayed true to form and stayed off Notes most of last week because I didn't want to see this controversy (avoid confrontation at all costs, that's me). When I made it to Notes I liked a post of a writer I admire who wrote about why he signed the Free Speech letter. I liked his post because I can agree to disagree, but then spent days thinking about that like and I returned to being sad.
Free speech is important, human safety more so. Why can't we all be like Ben?
Dear Donna, Oh, I do understand that wish to look away. The free speech letter sounds lovely and sensible as far as it goes. Both letters, I think, come from a place of good intentions. It would be a shame if people who don’t see this site as a place of goodness drive wedges between those who do. I hope this doesn’t rattle the community long.
Thank you, Tara. I have been thinking a lot about the fact that supporting free speech and detesting Naziism, fascism, white supremacy, etc. are not diametrically opposed. Franklin’s points appear to provide an honest place to draw the line.
I recently pointed out how this discussion has been taking on the quality of a circular firing squad. I appreciate that you treat the participants with an even, kind hand.
Thank you, C.L. Oh dear, a circular firing squad is a sobering image. I saw one person in Notes point out that the purpose of both letters was to communicate with Substack leadership, not to create animosities in Notes. That was a good reminder.
Me too. I set out to find some early statements about how magazines dealt with controversial subjects, but one text by Franklin had enough in it for a whole essay. I too found it illuminating.
This is wonderful, Tara. I'll add it to my own piece from today. I hope everyone will share it.
Thank you, Ramona! I appreciate you sharing it.
Thank you Tara for such an EXCELLENT PIECE . It is so extremely important to the future of Sub stack, our democracy, our country and even our world. No fascist state would ever allow the freedom of speech which we take for granted. So many of those leaning toward autocracy have no idea of what they're jeopardizing for short-term fantasies.
I wholeheartedly agree with going beyond Ben Franklin's guidelines to protect our freedom of speech and democracy - because he had no way of knowing how close our country would eventually get to leaping off the cliff's edge toward fascism.
"A platform that recognizes its debt to open discourse and democracy will do everything to protect the fragile environment that allows controversy to be safely aired. It will not “countenance” fascism, nor “promote” anything that “might do injury” to a person or to the democratic republic that preserves both our safety and our freedom to speak." Hear Yea, Hear Yea!
Thank you for this post. Ben Franklin — and you — sum up the issue well. The free speech argument is always thrown back at us by those who seek to spread hate and sow acts of violence against other humans, by those who would suppress freedom the instant they are given the opportunity. I think Substack has an obligation here, as a platform that encourages free speech and healthy discourse to set standards that at least match Franklin’s. That threshold is the bare minimum for a responsible platform.
Thank you, Desserae, for commenting. I appreciate Franklin's clarity on this point that seems to stump some folks in our time. Maybe he can help us.
As relevant today, as in 1731. A standard worth upholding. "I have also always refus’d to print such things as might do real Injury to any Person."
Who decides what constitutes fascism?
The censors will, of course.
Thank you for reading, Scott. I'm glad you brought up the word censorship. Franklin has a bit of fun with an 18th century English Licenser of the Press in the 1740 part of the link I provided in the essay and notes. He was not in favor of censorship (which he'd have understood as an official role). And this is what makes him such a useful study for us nowadays. It's worth reflecting on what it meant for him to champion free speech strongly, to poke fun at censorship, and still to have boundaries. If we aren't used to that, it's a good brainteaser.
He understood nuance.
'Who decides' is always an important question, never to be taken lightly, because we humans are prone to make mistakes, so we need to protect against very grave ones as much as possible.
For a media company, the owners have the final say in where they set the boundaries for their services (unless the boundaries violate someone's civil rights). The best writer's guidelines will not be vague (eg, "No fascism"); instead, a content director would take guiding principles to people who can help with specifics -- in this case, historians who know the archive of fascist communication in the 20th century. Historians would love to share what they know to prevent the disasters they've studied from happening again. A content director who consults with many knowledgeable people will make fewer mistakes than a director winging it from what they think they know.
In the context of current events (at Substack and otherwise), I have been thinking about this topic a great deal. As much as I personally abhor hate speech and fascist ideologies, I haven't been able, as yet, to settle on who gets to be the arbiter of the decision-making for what is approved and what is not. Of course, in private companies, the owners are generally permitted to do as they please. But as you point out here, it seems there are always exceptions to the rules. And what about public entities? That's where I lose my way. The way I see it, as soon as there is need for even one exception, the waters are muddied and the decision-making no longer impartial.
Elizabeth, thank you. These are challenging points. Public and private entities might reasonably follow different rules. Even though the First Amendment only guarantees that *Congress* will not infringe the right of free speech, that's sometimes interpreted to mean any public institution, I think. State universities are in a bigger pickle than Substack. As you may know, Ben Franklin favored self-regulation to state censorship, and he extended his self-regulation principles to his business, which made perfect sense to him, though today we are quick to call that censorship. Maybe just slowing down is enough to see a fresh way. The absence of any regulation, self or otherwise, would have seemed incompatible with democracy to the Founders. That does give me pause. Thank you for sharing your thoughts here on this not-at-all-simple subject!
Tara I like your question that maybe just slowing down is enough to see a fresh way.
Tara,
This is a compelling essay. Benjamin Franklin as a publisher is certainly a gold standard of both practicality and morality.
Franklin, Penry, and Grigg constitute a powerful triumvirate of advocates.
To paraphrase the language of James Madison from Federalist 10, which is worse, the disease or the cure?
At minimum you've given us all a lot to consider.
Best,
David
Thank you, David, yes, Federalist 10 is right on point! That's what makes Franklin such a compelling figure for me on this issue. He and Madison both support liberty. Neither would take away any right of political dissent (the formation of "factions"), but that's different from taking away the ability of someone to intimidate and harass election workers or people of another race or religion. Ramona makes a good point: We don't need to protect the free speech of anyone whose avowed purpose is to take away other people's free speech. It's possible that we may be able to have a little less disease with a carefully limited cure.
If only it was just the religious nuts who were obsessed with making sure other people don’t engage in wrongthink.
I'll join you in "If only": What if no one obsessed over wrongthink at all, or paid it any attention? Neither amplified it nor infringed it? Would the worst human ideas (there will always be bad ideas) go away for lack of interest and lack of amplification?
Yup.
Btw, Ol’ Ben’s definition of virtue could include a certain amount of adjustment when necessary. I am thinking of his essay on young men limiting their commerce d’amore to older women, for which he made eight arguments, all of which were more practical than salacious.
Ol' Ben knew his imperfections, which helped him lighten up on other peoples', yes? Maybe that's what helped him distinguish between errors everybody made and stronger stuff.
When I was young, I read his autobiography, still one of the best ever written, and I admired his attempt to perfect his character with his invention of a virtue ledger. I studied his approach carefully, hoping as a young idealist to do the same until I read the entire experiment. I sensed there was a twinkle in his eye as he wrote and it left me thinking it was probably okay to let Switter be Switter, with certain minor character flaws I have mostly managed to keep in the background over the years, thanks to his wise instruction. Not to say I won’t end up on the wrong side of the law, because while the chances of my going to prison are low, they are never zero.
Ah yes, sadly the saying 'never say never' often rings true. Your comment made me laugh out loud Switter!
I did not know that Benjamin Franklin invented a virtue ledger, that's interesting.
I did a quick search for an excerpt from Franklin’s Autobiography about his effort to practice a select list of virtues. The Next button at the bottom of the page takes you to the ledger. https://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page38.htm
The term “religious nuts” covers a very broad swath. Religion comes in a lot of flavors lately, and much of it isn’t ennobling. Fortunately the worst of the secular religions from the last century have flamed out spectacularly except for the few hangers on whose miserable, empty lives are full of whatever dog’s breakfasts of ideas they can lap up. The Facists, the National Socialists, and the International Socialists after a century of murder on an epic scale are known for what they are. It’s safe to say they won’t rise up again, which is not to say some new idiotic ideology won’t rise up before it can be beaten down again. The Klan is finished. Nazis are finished. Communists are finished. Crying wolf about Nazis on Substack gives them the attention they crave, down there in their moms’ basements. It’s the only thing they have in their miserable, hateful little lives.
Tara, what you've written here, so key to this discussion. I, like @Mark VanLaeys below, extract your lines to quote because threat to the safety of others and the republic that "you have only if you can keep it" are at stake here and elsewhere: "A platform that recognizes its debt to open discourse and democracy will do everything to protect the fragile environment that allows controversy to be safely aired. It will not “countenance” fascism, nor “promote” anything that “might do injury” to a person or to the democratic republic that preserves both our safety and our freedom to speak."
Thank you, Mary. Franklin said so much that is germane to this debate. I didn't set out to make a whole post about one 1731 document, but in the end, everything he needed to say to us was all there in one list of ten statements. Thank you for Restacking!
I add this quote that I placed in Part one of "The Survivor's Dilemma" here: https://innerlifecollaborative.substack.com/p/the-survivor-dilemma Here's the quote: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me."
Thank you, Mary. That is such a chilling quotation, and your posts on Elie Wiesel make it clear why actually free speech, which includes free and fair elections, is a prize we do not want to lose.
Great stuff, Tara.
I'd accept the "free speech" argument from our Substack overlords a little more easily, but they have their thumb on the scale, the right side of it at that.
Going after the money is not a politically neutral act. See Citizens United. It makes the platform whiter, righter, more Anglocentric, and less diverse.
If they want to be hands off, they need to take their thumb off the scale.
It has not escaped my attention that the "other" letter is cosigned by several people who Substack paid to come to the platform. Interesting that it preempted the other one, and that Substack has quoted it back. This piece of Astroturf looks like an inside job.
Quite right, John. Special interest money and Content Guidelines (or absence thereof) do not mix.
I wonder what Ben would have thought of Citizens United?
Well, he understood human folly....
A gift we could all use.
Bravo Tara! Your attention to detail in this essay is astounding. I have found the comments here equally amazing and I have learned a lot.
Mostly I am sad. Since I lean toward the all-people-are-good fairytale and I've not seen any of the Nazi writing on Substack with my own eyes I was hoping if I ignored it it would go away. It couldn't be true that this was happening on my beloved Substack. I then stayed true to form and stayed off Notes most of last week because I didn't want to see this controversy (avoid confrontation at all costs, that's me). When I made it to Notes I liked a post of a writer I admire who wrote about why he signed the Free Speech letter. I liked his post because I can agree to disagree, but then spent days thinking about that like and I returned to being sad.
Free speech is important, human safety more so. Why can't we all be like Ben?
Thank you so much for this Tara.
Dear Donna, Oh, I do understand that wish to look away. The free speech letter sounds lovely and sensible as far as it goes. Both letters, I think, come from a place of good intentions. It would be a shame if people who don’t see this site as a place of goodness drive wedges between those who do. I hope this doesn’t rattle the community long.
Yes, I agree.
Thank you, Tara. I have been thinking a lot about the fact that supporting free speech and detesting Naziism, fascism, white supremacy, etc. are not diametrically opposed. Franklin’s points appear to provide an honest place to draw the line.
I recently pointed out how this discussion has been taking on the quality of a circular firing squad. I appreciate that you treat the participants with an even, kind hand.
Thank you, C.L. Oh dear, a circular firing squad is a sobering image. I saw one person in Notes point out that the purpose of both letters was to communicate with Substack leadership, not to create animosities in Notes. That was a good reminder.
Love the historical context!
Me too. I set out to find some early statements about how magazines dealt with controversial subjects, but one text by Franklin had enough in it for a whole essay. I too found it illuminating.