The problem with “free speech” is that the argument relies upon education, that we look beyond the specific case in front of us (of some speech we dislike) to a larger perspective and principle.
I mention this because recent tweets of mine in support of Cloudflare’s anti-censorship stance has gone viral, and my twitter “Mentions” has become flooded with the most uneducated responses, like “you can’t yell fire in a movie theater”.
I don’t want to be insulting here, or claim only the uneducated would oppose Cloudflare. There are smart, educated people who oppose Cloudflare in their fight over Kiwifarms censorship. It’s just that smart, educated people do so with better arguments than “fire in a movie theater”.
First let me explain the controversy in front of us.
Kiwifarms is one of those vile forums on the Internet, like in the 8chan model, where its members compete to see who can be the worst, most vile people on the Internet. Sometimes they spill out into the real world, by “doxxing” and “swatting”. Doxxing is the act of posting people’s personal information, namely home and work addresses, as an act of intimidation. Swatting is calling up the police with fake reports (“help, I’m trapped in a closet”) that causes S.W.A.T. teams to descend on the person’s house, causing a dangerous situation where the target risks getting shot.
Cloudflare is an Internet services company. They claim that roughly 25% of the web touches their services at some point (probably an over statement, but the real number is still huge). In order to get to Kiwifarms, at some point you go through Cloudflare to reach them.
Right now, there is a lot of pressure for Cloudflare to block Kiwifarms. Cloudflare refuses, on the principle that censorship is bad.
Whether they are right or wrong, their position is massively educated and principled. This is not a decision they’ve made lightly, but one they’ve researched extensively, thought a lot about, and hired the best people in the industry to deal with. Whether you agree or disagree, it’s a reasonable decision.
A “principle” is something you defend even when doing so hurts your side and helps the other side. If you believe in the “principle of free speech”, that means defending the ability of those you hate to nonetheless speak freely.
The model for this is how in 1977 the ACLU defended the rights of neo-Nazis to parade in Jewish neighborhoods of Skokie, Illinois. Nobody could accuse the ACLU of being pro-Nazi. The ACLU was instead acting on “principle”.
In more modern times, electronic rights group EFF has likewise sided with Cloudflare against censorship. They are a bunch of California hippies who oppose neo-Nazis and rabidly defend things like trans rights — but yet still stand against arbitrary censorship of those on the opposing side of these issues.
Conversely, Elon Musk’s offer to buy Twitter to defend free speech isn’t principled. He appears to be doing so because he likes some of the speech that Twitter removes. He appears to be defending his side, not principle.
I mention “principled” because one of the simplest attacks against Cloudflare is accusing them of being secretly neo-Nazi’s who oppose trans rights. Smearing opponents as supporters of hate is a frequent bullying tactic by the uneducated. It only works against those who actually care. Only those who are anti-Nazi, pro-trans can be bullied this way. It’s used by the Orthodox to police those with heterodox opinions. They hope to bully Cloudflare into stop thinking rationally but instead to respond emotionally.
The most uneducated response, though, is the statement “You can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater”. When we educated people get together over beer and discuss censorship issues, it’s the sort of thing we cite as a joke, to mock the uneducated. We cite the conversations that go like this:
Them: You can’t yell fire in a movie theater.
Us: So what you are saying is, that many forms of speech should be illegal, like protesting the draft?
Them: That’s a false equivalence, I didn’t mean anything like that.
We laugh and laugh because that’s exactly where the phrase comes from, the case Schenck v US, where the court said that government could make protesting the draft illegal because it was like shouting fire in a theater. That case has since been repudiated by the court, because of course protesting the draft should be legal.
It’s a meme — something people say because they’ve heard it before, and it sounds convincing if no original thought or education is applied to the problem.
Yes, I’m being insulting, but no, I don’t want to be. It is through asking such questions, from testing arguments, that we acquire knowledge. It’s a valid argument for those wanting to learn when being corrected, just not a valid argument in a debate. At some point, all of us went through the stage where we confidently stated “you can’t yell fire in a theater”, even if now we are mocking its stupidity. All experts were ignorant at some point.
The point of this blogpost is thus not to mock such statements, but to point out that we have a complex debate. The reason Cloudflare makes its decisions isn’t because it’s secretly pro-Nazi or anti-trans, or that it’s arbitrarily making such a decision. It’s not making this decision because they are ignorant of whatever argument you are making. Its policy is based on an enormous amount of research and thought. Whether or not you agree with the decision, you have to respect the effort Cloudflare has put into it.
Several of my tweets on this issue have gone viral, but the one with the most responses seems to be this one. You can read the responses or the quote-tweets for yourself. The following list is a paraphrasing of them, grouping similar statements together. I call them “uneducated”, meaning, that those who care about free speech, including Cloudflare’s leaders, have considered all them, deeply.
You can’t shout fire in a crowded movie theater
Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance
Cloudflare is a private company, so it’s not censorship (free speech only applies to government)
Cloudflare is a private company, so has the right to do whatever it wants
Cloudflare has already censored things
It’s not censorship, because Kiwifarms can get services elsewhere
But Kiwifarms isn’t normal speech (it’s hate speech), so different rules apply
But Kiwifarms is evil, why are you taking their side?
The “slippery slope” argument that this will eventually lead to bad censorship is a fallacy.
A detailed statement that looks educated but is completely wrong, like “The supreme court, who in 1969 ruled that hateful speech or speech inciting violence is not protected by free speech in the Brandenburg vs. Ohio case.”
Free speech, Cloudflare, and Kiwifarms
I do think it's a lose-lose-lose situation. Shitty people doing shitty things
I actually brought up the ACLU case with the Nazis to my neighbor, and I was wondered if the ACLU would take on such a case today
They weren't always this principled.
Cloudflare CEO on Terminating Service to Neo-Nazi Site: 'The Daily Stormer Are Assholes'
https://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295