Connect with us

censorship

150 Top Intellectuals Sign Open Letter Decrying Cancel Culture

Numerous public figures including Noam Chomsky and Salman Rushdie oppose totalitarian march of ” ideological conformity”.

Published

10 months ago

on

Getty Images

150 of the world’s top intellectuals, authors and activists have signed an open letter decrying leftist cancel culture, censorship and the totalitarian march of “ideological conformity.”

Signatories include liberal icon Noam Chomsky and ‘Satanic Verses’ author Salman Rushdie.

The letter, which was published by Harpers Magazine, is also signed by J.K. Rowling, Fareed Zakaria, Garry Kasparov, and, perhaps surprisingly, feminist activist Gloria Steinem.

“The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides,” states the letter, highlighting how “the free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted” as a result of “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”

“Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes,” states the letter.

This is creating a climate of risk aversion that is preventing anyone from dissenting from the monolithic consensus of social justice rhetoric, creating a “stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time,” according to the letter.

The letter highlights the fact that there are still some genuine “liberals” left in society who are willing to stand behind the increasingly endangered species of free speech.

However, some would ask where they’ve been hiding for the past three years since mass censorship, particularly by monopolistic social media giants, has been significantly ramped up.

The idea that an open letter will do much to stop the rampaging virus of cancel culture is also up for debate. Why don’t these intellectuals organize a major conference or a massive protest march to showcase their principles?

The irony of course is that if this letter gains any traction at all, its signatories will immediately become targets for cancellation from the unhinged, woke far-left.

The full letter is reprinted below.

——————————————–

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

My voice is being silenced by free speech-hating Silicon Valley behemoths who want me disappeared forever. It is CRUCIAL that you support me.

Please sign up for the free newsletter here. Donate to me on SubscribeStar here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

———————————————————————————————————————

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Comments

censorship

Government’s ‘Online Safety’ Bill Will Limit Free Speech, Lead To Massive ‘State-backed Censorship’ Warn Watchdogs

“A frightening and historic attack on freedom of speech”

Published

16 hours ago

on

13 May, 2021

Steve Watson

adventtr / Getty Images

Free speech activists in the UK have warned that new government legislation aimed at social media companies is set to decimate free speech and bring in ‘state-backed censorship’ on an unprecedented scale.

The ‘Online Safety’ Bill is being introduced with the justification of forcing big tech to be more accountable for ‘harmful’ content on their websites.

However, activists have noted that it will could be used to remove any opinions and content that big tech or the state do not agree with, and could lead to more publishers being permanently banned from platforms.

The legislation gives the government Office of Communications the power to issue fines of up to £18million or 10 per cent of their annual global turnover if that is higher, and to completely block access to platforms.

Privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch has labelled the legislation “state-backed censorship and monitoring on a scale never seen before in a liberal democracy.”

Another activist group. The Free Speech Union noted that the draft legislation effectively brings media created content on social networks “within scope of a state regulator.”

Another group, The Adam Smith Institute labelled the move “a frightening and historic attack on freedom of speech.”

“The Government should not have the power to instruct private firms to remove legal speech in a free society,” commented Matthew Lesh of the Institute.

‘The scope of these proposals is practically limitless, encompassing everything from ‘trolling’ to ‘fraud’ and ‘misinformation’,” he added.

Lesh further warned that “The vagueness of the legislation means there will be nothing to stop Ofcom and a future government including any additional measures in future.”

Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group also weighed in, urging that ‘Treating online speech as inherently dangerous and demanding that risks are eliminated under the threat of massive fines is only going to end up in over-reaction and content removal.”

The legislation is set to be reviewed by a joint committee of MPs, and then brought to Parliament.

The move is yet another example of government using the broad definition of ‘hate speech’ to put into place tools that can be used to silence dissent or opinions it does not want in the public realm.

The legislation was drafted and announced following a sustained campaign involving celebrities and sports personalities who demanded that big tech companies should be held more accountable for instances of racism and bullying on its platforms.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/ PJW Shop

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

censorship

Facebook Bans Australian Member of Parliament For Anti-Lockdown Posts

MP slams “foreign entity” for silencing an elected representative.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

27 April, 2021

Getty Images

Facebook has banned a page run by an Australian Member of Parliament that had over 100,000 followers over its anti-lockdown content, with MP Craig Kelly questioning how a “foreign entity” should have the power to silence an elected representative.

Kelly, an Independent Australian politician and member for the Division of Hughes in the Australian House of Representatives, ran a page that became popular for challenging the Australian government’s lockdown policy, which has proved to be one of the most draconian in the western world.

Kelly previously quit the Liberal Party back in February after the government apparently told him to “shut up” about his COVID claims and refrain from posting anything further about the issue.

However, he refused to do so despite having already been temporarily suspended by Facebook and continued to challenge the efficacy and legal standing of lockdowns and raise concerns over vaccine side-effects while also questioning the legitimacy of World Health Organization guidelines – leading to a permanent ban.

“Firstly, they refused to tell me what they say is misinformation … I stand 100% by everything I’ve posted. It’s not my random thoughts, it’s backed up by scientific evidence,” said Kelly.

The MP said he was “absolutely outraged” about how a “foreign entity” has the power to silence an elected official and is now working on a bill that would hit Big Tech firms with a $100,000 per day fine for unfairly banning people for political speech.

Facebook responded to criticism over the ban by indicating they didn’t care about the fact that Kelly was an elected representative.

“We don’t allow anyone, including elected officials, to share misinformation about COVID-19 that could lead to imminent physical harm or [misinformation regarding] COVID-19 vaccines that have been debunked by public health experts,” said a statement.

And there you have it. So-called “public health experts” are now gods who wield more power than elected politicians and cannot be criticized or questioned in any way.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

PJW Shop

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

censorship

Nextdoor Social Media App Warns Users About ‘Racism’ For Typing “All Lives Matter”

“Anti-racism” notification system alerts users to revise their speech.

Published

3 weeks ago

on

21 April, 2021

ERIC BARADAT via Getty Images

The newly released Nextdoor social media app warns users that they may be engaging in racism before allowing them to send certain words or phrases, including “all lives matter” and “blue lives matter.”

Yes, really.

Nextdoor, an app that connects neighbors with each other, has introduced a new “anti-racism” notification system that alerts users if they may be about to use offensive or bigoted language.

When the user is about to transmit the thought crime, the app asks them to consider revising their words.

“The new anti-racism notification detects certain phrases such as ‘All Lives Matter’ or ‘Blue Lives Matter,’ and prompts the author to consider editing their post or comment before it goes live,” a Nextdoor spokesperson said.

In a video demonstration for the feature, someone responds to a message about Black Lives Matter by asking, “Why just black lives? I believe all lives matter.”

A warning then pops up which announces “Hold on – the phrase “all lives matter” can be hurtful to people of color. Consider editing before you publish.”

The user in the demonstration then deletes their “all lives matter” message and writes something different to signify compliance.

The company also has a “kindness reminder” feature that “automatically flags offensive or hurtful comments.”

As Christina Maas points out, “Tech platforms are constantly trying to change and mold people’s speech.”

While race grifters and legacy media outlets have tried to brand “all lives matter” a racist dog whistle, its use is widespread.

A survey conducted last year found that a majority of Americans agreed more with the statement “all lives matter” compared to “black lives matter.”

null

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter:

———————————————————————————————————————

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

PJW Shop

ALERT!

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here.

Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

———————————————————————————————————————

Continue Reading

Trending