I suppose that’s why the abstract was accepted, & why I was invited to present, and while there were some pointed methodological questions (aren’t there always) no one seemed offended and I certainly wasn’t told or had it implied to me that I wouldn’t be welcomed back if I wanted to speak again. 4/
Now, if on the other hand I’d presented some quackery about influencing the emotional state of water with heavy metal music, or worse, gone on an extended diatribe about which breed of dogs I think are the best lay, I probably would have been told in no uncertain terms that I wasn’t welcome back. 5/
This wouldn’t have been a violation, or restriction, or hindrance of my free speech. It’s perfectly in line with the editorial philosophy our former peer-reviewed journal EIC discussed during his presentation earlier today. It turns out I don’t have a “right” to address the IOA World Congress. 6/
My freedom of speech allows me to cross the street, stand on a soapbox, and address the grass and anyone in Centennial Park who will listen. But because the IOA has freedom of association, they can’t possibly curb my rights by exercising theirs. Thinking they could is really pretty silly. 7/
Chris Rufo doesn’t have a right to column inches on the NYT opinion page nor a seat on the Sunday morning shows, & denying him those things because he’s a toxic, lying, bad faith asshole is not a violation of his rights. It’s funny how little Team Personal Responsibility understands consequences. 8/
Rufo has been very transparent about the bad faith instrumentality of his use of free speech, and while I don’t think the government should punish him for it, I disagree with the Harper’s Letter authors that because other assholes cheer it on the rest of us are somehow obligated to platform it. 9/
Cancellation in this sense is the tool we have in our arsenal to combat the Chris Rufos of the world, because as Sartre explained long ago, this isn’t the kind of speech that can be defeated by more, better speech, because it’s barely even speech in a traditional sense but juvenile provocation. 10/
But as we can see as the anti-vaxxer and race realist lunatics storm the gates and sack the city, we can’t just engage with it like they might have a point. And if we don’t want government getting involved (and we don’t) then social stigma, shame, and mockery are our only defense. 11/
Yeah, of course this can go overboard. It can turn into the Red Scare, though again, without Army-McCarthy (government) that’s not quite the same. But we’re living in a world where we took the other extreme, where race realism is now considered a legitimate view, and that isn’t great either. 12/
So yeah, I absolutely believe in cancel culture, in stigma, in social consequences for speech that violates the sensibilities of the vast majority, as a way of building societal immunity to viral, pathogenic speech, and think they knew what they were doing when they went after that first. <>