New Yorker Writer Joins Growing List Of Liberals Calling For Censorship

My column in the USA Today concerns the growing movement among Democrats in seeking to limit free speech and embrace censorship. This trend was vividly on display this week when University of California-Berkeley sought to feature a speaker on free speech. The choice was a reporter who seeks to limit free speech and opposes those of us who advocate for the right as “absolutists.” New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz is actively seeking to convincing free citizens to give up this core freedom in the name of controlling extremism. Of course, all of the examples of extremism cited by Marantz seem to be found on the right.

Marantz’s book ANTISOCIAL: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians and the Hijacking of the American Conversation repeats the siren’s call for censorship being heard around the country, particularly on our campuses. Berkeley has been repeatedly accused of curtailing or blocking conservative speakers. Thus, it seems only fitting that its free speech speaker should be someone opposed to free speech. Berkeley Assistant Vice Chancellor of Executive Communications Dan Mogulof said that Marantz’s anti-free speech message “covered issues related to Free Speech of interest to the members of the campus community.” It makes as much sense as inviting a vegan writer to hold forth on the joys of beef.

Marantz insists that our model of free speech is fundamentally flawed and analogized the traditional view of free speech to holding a party where a couch was burned:

“You might strongly disapprove of the person lighting the couch on fire and feel very concerned and have a deeply furrowed brow on your face. But you set the conditions that made that possible. You did or didn’t have a policy at the door of who was going to get carded. You made the lighting choices, you made the music choices, you chose not to have a functional PA system at the party so that if somebody does start lighting a couch on fire, there’s some way to quickly alert everyone, ‘Hey, guys, there’s a couch on fire. We need to do something about this.’ You just opened the doors and said, ‘The marketplace will figure it out.’” And if you’re wrong, which in the case of our current real timeline, they were wrong. It’s not really clear what you can do once it’s too late. And you have authoritarians installed in 10 major democracies and all the rest of it.”

It is a uniquely poor argument since the only choice made in a free country is to guarantee free speech. We certainly do not know who will engage in bad or hateful speech. However, we are more concerned with people like Marantz deciding who will attend “the party.”

Marantz indicated who he would exclude from the party. He speaks of “white supremacy” which he declares “has always been used by what has been called the political right.” He also railed against Fox News and “specious, Dinesh D’Souza arguments about how Democrats are the real racists.” He added a complaint that “apparently Rupert Murdoch just will never die.”

By the end of the remarks, Marantz made a far better argument for my “absolutist” ideas than I could. For Marantz, free speech has to be curtailed to stop conservatives and the forces of “white supremacy.” The problem is found on the right and not in such anti-free speech movements like Antifa. Indeed, Marantz’s arguments seem right out of the Antifa handbook.

 I have previously discussed how Antifa and other college protesters are increasingly denouncing free speech and the foundations for liberal democracies. Some protesters reject classic liberalism and the belief in free speech as part of the oppression on campus.  The movement threatens both academic freedom and free speech — a threat that is growing due to the failure of administrators and faculty to remain true to core academic principles.  Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray, the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” is one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.

Marantz expresses the same intolerance for the free speech of those who hold opposing views. It was no doubt empowering for the faculty and students at Berkeley who have actively opposed events featuring those with differing views. Yet, Marantz could be heard as a free speech speaker who opposes free speech.

I actually think it is great to have speakers like Marantz as part of differing views on this and other subjects. However, his message is one of exclusion, regulation, and censorship of others. As such, he certainly found his audience at Berkeley.

155 thoughts on “New Yorker Writer Joins Growing List Of Liberals Calling For Censorship”

  1. A bit of video for those that didn’t see it because I understand the MSM didn’t show it. 50 second ovation for Trump at Alabama LSU game. No financial encouragement for the applause. These people were just watching the game. Peter must have his mind elsewhere.

  2. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-nine weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – hope spring eternal.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-nine weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – my den is where I am sending this from.

  3. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-nine weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – are you trying to get kicked off?

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-nine weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – it didn’t, hasn’t, won’t.

  4. Now Playing Down This Thread:

    The Shill Responds To Olly And Alan..

    Regarding Classical Liberalism

    Here the hated Shill replies to manufactured dismay that he can’t accept Libertarians as intellectual heirs to Classical Liberals.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Olly, Alan: My brother was a Philosophy Major at a very old college. He gave me a good idea of what the study entailed.

    Your application of the term “Classical Liberalism” refers to social progressives in the 18th Century. Guys like Jefferson were hip back then. And I mean that with all honesty. Jefferson was progressive for that stage in time.

    In the development of Popular Thought, the late 1700’s marked a major turning point. The American and French revolutions shook up Europe in a very big way. The power of royals would diminish from that time. Napoleon’s brief reign would take down the Spanish and Vatican Empires.

    But Classical Liberalism has no application to current politics in the United States. It’s only pretentious packaging on the part of Trumpers. Voters who think out-sourcing the government is just ‘common sense’.

    Imagine the EPA run by contractors. Classical Liberal Tea Baggers would consign us to that fate. Air and water quality determined by Hedge Fund Managers!

    Donald Trump makes it clear that environmental concerns matter to only flakes. ‘Climate Change is just a hoax’. That kind of thinking pre-dates Classical Liberalism. That’s more like the Spanish Empire. An order where Cardinals set social policy while muzzling astronomers.

    1. Peter, It’s hard to respond to someone that lacks any understanding what so ever of what they are talking about. I think it would be best for you to let your brother do the talking while you shake your head in agreement.

      1. Allan – he didn’t actually say that his brother got a degree in Philosophy, did he? Just that he majored in it.

        1. Paul, my brother got a B A in Philosophy, Major in Industrial Relations and Law Degree on top of those. He then became a highly paid executive in positions that combined Industrial Relations and Law. In the process he went from being a Marxist hippie to millionaire executive.

            1. Alan, my brother evolved. But his education was solid. So I don’t know where you get off thinking Libertarians are heirs to 18th Century progressives.

              But I’ve heard this claim before so it doesn’t surprise me. Commenters like you believe we can somehow bring back the 18th Century; or at least the 1920’s. Like nothing has really changed that much. Then comically you accuse me of ‘not grasping history’.

              1. “I don’t know where you get off thinking Libertarians are heirs to 18th Century progressives.”

                Peter, no one said they were. Libertarians come in all different stripes and even can be categorized differently. You don’t know these things. They are not part of your talking points.

                “Then comically you accuse me of ‘not grasping history’.”

                You have absolutely no grasp of history and to be honest your level is shockingly low. I am not saying that you don’t know some chronological history along with names and major events. I don’t think your knowledge in that sphere is great but you lack the concepts one learns from history while lacking logic and critical thinking skills.

              2. Alan, my brother evolved. But his education was solid. So I don’t know where you get off thinking Libertarians are heirs to 18th Century progressives.

                Thanks for the anachronism. Been an education.

    2. Also posted in your down-thread comment:

      He gave me a good idea of what the study entailed.

      And there you have it. The Shill has joined the world pre-loaded with ideas he has never had to develop himself. When confronted with ideas that challenge his apparent programming, all he can do is utter does not compute. Or, let me ask my brother for my opinion.

      Do you know why teachers will require students to show their work when they are solving math problems? Because the process of understanding mathematical principles is more important than just getting a correct answer. Sometimes you can stumble onto the correct answer. Sometimes you will cheat and get the answer from someone else. Sometimes devices and programs are available to solve the problem. But when none of that is available and you need to solve it yourself, you’ve developed those critical-thinking skills to work out the correct answer.

      You clearly have absolutely no skills to work through problems that challenge your current understanding. If I put you in a round room and told you to go stand in the corner, you’d do laps until you passed out from exhaustion.

      As for your take on classical liberalism; FAILED!

      1. Olly, you can’t link contemporary Libertarians to Classical Liberals. Tea Baggers are ‘not’ the intellectual heirs to our founding fathers or great thinkers of that period.

        Yet rightwing media has promoted the idea that everything that applied to 18th Century thought still applies today. Like if Jefferson came back he’d ‘hate big government’. That’s stupid speculation!

        Our founding fathers, and great thinkers of that time, had no way of envisioning the 21st Century. Jefferson, for instance, could not have pictured cities with millions of people and massive infrastructure.

        Therefore to presume that Jefferson would prescribe 18th Century principles for 21st Century issues is utterly ridiculous. It’s like Amish people thinking God wants to keep us riding horse and buggies.

        1. you can’t link contemporary Libertarians to Classical Liberals.

          I’ve never tried to.

          Tea Baggers are ‘not’ the intellectual heirs to our founding fathers or great thinkers of that period.

          I recognize the ad hominem, but why would you think they claim to be intellectual heirs of the founding fathers? Who are these people you speak of, and what are they saying for you to make that statement?

          Yet rightwing media has promoted the idea that everything that applied to 18th Century thought still applies today.

          What rightwing media has promoted this idea? What 18th century thought are they promoting?

          Like if Jefferson came back he’d ‘hate big government’. That’s stupid speculation!

          No, that is totally like, you know dude, a stupid comment. Speculating what a founding father might actually think leads to studying what that founding father actually thought. Try it sometime. I’ve studied Jefferson and others, some may have wanted more power in the central government, but none of them would look at what we have today with admiration.

          Our founding fathers, and great thinkers of that time, had no way of envisioning the 21st Century.

          They had studied as much recorded history that was available. They knew technology would change, territory would change and population would change. They also knew something that would never change, human nature. They knew what power and money would entice men to do. They knew about rights of man, they knew that some rights preexist any government. They knew civil society needed government. They knew government would abuse their power if left unchecked. They knew a republican form of government was the best form. They knew the states and the people needed to defend their rights from the central government. They knew the free market was the only economic system that would preserve our life, liberty and property.

          Therefore to presume that Jefferson would prescribe 18th Century principles for 21st Century issues is utterly ridiculous.

          I just gave you a hint, but I will be waiting on pins and needles for you to tell me what those 18th century principles are and why those principles won’t work in this century or any other.

          1. Olly, if you think my points are vague, then your’s and Alan’s are as well. No where do either of you say what it is you’re really arguing.

            But I have heard, and you certainly hint, that current Libertarians are supposed to be the intellectual heirs to ‘classical liberalism’ or whatever you want to call it. The idea seems to be that contemporary arch-conservatives are actually the ‘real liberals’ and today’s liberals are really ‘fascists’.

            It’s an effort to present ‘Second Amendment Rights’ and fear of ‘big government’ as being natural concerns of ‘classical liberals’. Like gun-waving yahoos at NRA rallies are really hip guys in the ‘classic sense’. And only people who really ‘know history’ understand all this.

            Again these narratives are pretentious nonsense promoted by rightwing media. And we never heard these narratives until quite recently.

            1. But I have heard, and you certainly hint, that current Libertarians are supposed to be the intellectual heirs to ‘classical liberalism’ or whatever you want to call it.

              Shill,
              You are fabricating utter nonsense. Cite the actual comments I’ve made that led you to make the statement and we can discuss it’s accuracy.

              In the meantime, you’ve decried classical liberal principles as being unworkable in the 21st century. I’ve asked you to state clearly what you believe those principles are and to this point you’ve not done it. Now if the following was meant to be your answer, then you’re light years away from having a vague understanding: It’s an effort to present ‘Second Amendment Rights’ and fear of ‘big government’ as being natural concerns of ‘classical liberals’.

              1. Olly, Shill just talks and won’t go line by line because he knows that he only can provide generalized accusations that he has little understanding of. A long time ago I went over some of these things and he couldn’t deal with them then and obviously hasn’t learned anything and can’t deal with them now.

                1. Allan, I understand exactly what the Shill’s on this blog are experiencing, but their response to it is completely irrational.

                  I first began participating in online forums in 2007. I had never studied US civics beyond what was required in HS and college. I actually believed I had a very good understanding of our history, until I started to provide my opinion. Not only was my opinion consistently wrong, people kept asking me where I came up with that opinion. I kept looking for a source to back me up, but instead I kept finding sources to prove me wrong. That was humbling. I was on Linkedin at the time so I wasn’t hiding behind anonymity. My response to that initial experience was to begin studying. If I was going to continue to participate, I was going to do so with provable opinions. That’s when I also learned not all sources were reliable. Ultimately, I learned the most reliable source was the original source. How many times have the Shills on this blog provided original source material to support their worldview?

                  1. Olly the original source for most of these sophomoric simpletons is the Washington Post or the rest of MSM. They do not know the difference between original sources, secondary and tertiary sources, anonymous and a named significant individuals, intellect and wisdom.

                    To improve their performance they should try arguing the opposite viewpoint from their own. At present their defense of their personal viewpoints is inept and should be embarrassing but isn’t.

                    1. Allan, their sources might stink, but the sources aren’t the problem. It’s how they assemble the data. The McCabe – Wiessman crew spent 32 months trying to gin up a case against Trump and came up with a mess of diversions. The sham nature of this collection of indictments had to be pointed out to him again and again, and he never got it. When Barr was confirmed as attorney-general and Weissman realized he couldn’t (contrary to standing Justice Department policy) secure indictments against the president and others for obstructing his obstruction investigation, the jig was up. The response of two of our regular trolls was to pretend for effect that Weissman and McCabe had succeeded when they’d failed, repeating the incantation, ‘Read the Mueller Report’. When it became evident that Mueller hadn’t been running the investigation and may in fact be non compos mentis, it was crickets form this crew. Now they’re pretending for effect that the President’s mundane conversation with the President of the Ukraine incorporates an impeachable offense. Betwixt and between they were pretending for effect that Brett Kavanaugh was a lying alcoholic aspirant rapist. Nothing going on out there in the world is the source of these assertions on their part.

                    2. “Allan, their sources might stink, but the sources aren’t the problem. It’s how they assemble the data”.

                      DSS, both bloggers and the media play their parts producing responses that do not connect with reality. We understand what the media’s part is but as I have said many times these two guys treat their ideology like a faith based religion. Add to that a lack of intellect and impaired personalities and the result is the craziness we see.

                    3. To improve their performance they should try arguing the opposite viewpoint from their own.

                      That’s never going to happen, because their performance is for effect, not truth.

  5. excellent1 any step away from Marxist Lenism is a step in the right direction with the added dividend it serves to highlight or expose that whole sick charade

  6. (music)
    Come on baby light my fire!
    Light my fire… light my fire….
    Light the couch.

    Most of the blog readers here have probably not heard of The German American Bund. That was back in the days of Hitler when some Americans of German heritage were promoting Nazi diatribe.
    A good thing for a school like Berkeley would be a chapel on a hill with many rows of seats and a bully pulpit up on stage. Anyone can come and yak and anyone can come and listen. But no one can shout him down or shoot. Some Bund officers could curb bad behavior.

    The term “liberals” gets abused on this blog. If you don’t like a right winger then you are supposed to be a liberal. In Stalin days you were a commie if you were left wing and a Nazi if right wing and a Wild Wing is you lived out west and knew nothing about global polittics.

  7. Marantz’s book ANTISOCIAL: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians and the Hijacking of the American Conversation

    New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz is such a lowbrow troglodyte he does not realize that he has projected his personal biases into the title of his screed ANTISOCIAL: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians and the Hijacking of the American Conversation

    Who is the extremist? And who is seeking to hijack the conversation?

    Apparently on the not-so enlightened campus of University of California-Berkeley the only person allowed to exercise freedom of speech is Andrew Marantz (ie those approved by University). Any one attempting to rebut his vile/defective/bankrupt ideology is silenced.

    New Yorker staff writer Andrew Marantz ideology of lowbrow cretinism will never be mistaken for dialogue, dialectic or debate.

    Andrew Marantz may be able to run from opposing view points but he will never be able to hide from factual based analysis/rebuttal of his defective ideology.

    Only those who have lost the debate before it began would seek to limit/censor others speech when it contradicts their uninformed opinions (ie ignorance).

    If your ideology can not survive open debate in a public forum your ideology is defective.

    All the screaming, shouting, foot stomping, belly-aching and breath holding prove on thing:

    you are a child.

    1. “You can’t handle the truth!”

      – Colonel Jessup
      ______________

      Freedom of assembly is defined by its inverse and corollary, freedom of disassembly, which includes discrimination and, plug your ears, snowflakes, racism, statutes precluding property damage and bodily injury notwithstanding.

      The communists in America can’t handle the truth: Americans are free – government is severely limited and restricted.

      Americans are free in every last natural and God-given right and freedom that is enumerated in the Constitution and every last natural and God-given right and freedom that is not enumerated in the Constitution, per the 9th Amendment.

      They can’t handle the truth that government became the “subject” of the “sovereign,” which is constituted by the People, in 1789 upon the adoption of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      Individual freedom is always the default position in any debate or ligation regarding dominion.

      1. Same as freedom of religion automatically includes freedom from religion but also adds the burden of duty to support both regardless. Recall Geo. Washington’s letter to the church that wanted exemption from military service because they refused to shoot anyone.

        Geo. simplified it by agreeing and finding a suitable replacement job as service in the medical corps as stretcher bearers. Lo and behold the first award of the Medal of Honor went to one of those who served in that alternate duty.

        The story goes George set the stage by sitting down and breaking break/eating with them

        Notice that once the war was over there was NO military conscription.

    2. ANTISOCIAL?

      Per the Constitution and Bill of Rights:

      Americans may be as antisocial as they want to be. Americans may engage in freedom of speech with reference to being “social” or “antisocial.” Americans may accept any person or group and Americans may reject any person or group. Owners of private property may hire and/or fire anyone they prefer. Governmental organizations, from the president to the lowest ranking supervisor, may engage in hiring/promoting based solely on merit and may discriminate by any criteria – those decisions may only be made by appropriate level managers. Congress has no power to execute and has merely the power to influence appointments as advice and consent.

      Laws and statutes to the contrary are irrefutably unconstitutional.

      Constitutional rights may not be denied to individuals in order to provide various, superior or affirmative rights to others.

      The Constitution and Bill of Rights are irrefutably absolute.

  8. Red flags are waving wildly……see how they seek to hide, erase and eliminate any past history.

    how long before this guy is found dead in Fort Marcy Park from “suicide”? He is all of 33 years of age and no doubt very much afraid. The Left will shoot him much like Hillary and her mob shot Congresswoman Major Tulsi Gabbard, a highly decorated military officer and fearless woman

    SMH

    Paul Sperry

    @paulsperry_

    BREAKING: Eric Ciaramella’s Internet footprint–including photos & bios–began to be scrubbed beginning in early Sept, after the National Intelligence director transmitted whistleblower letter to Congress,like the digital tracks of Dems’ other”whistleblower” Christine Blasey Ford
    12:20 PM – 7 Nov 2019
    9,569 Retweets 14,561 Likes

    https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1192537356269735937

    1. glad to see, unlike the media you got the color the flags correctly rightly assigning La Bandera Rosa to the left.

Leave a Reply