Which beleaguered free-speech champion is being silenced today?
Business Insider Editor in Chief Nich Carlson defended the decision, stating in one email that “Editors should make sure we are not publishing shallow, ‘hot takes,’ but instead, fully thought-out arguments that reflect and respect the opposing view.”
“There should be no partisan name-calling, e.g. ‘social justice warriors,’ ‘libtards,’ or ‘rednecks.’ ” Carlson advised. “Opinion and arguments should feel reported and researched, and not like quick reactions.”
That seems reasonable. Yet in her letter of resignation, which she immediately shared widely across social media, and in a follow-up column published in The Post , Greenbaum describes “ferocious blowback.” She suggests that further review would have inevitably turned her column into a “safe space” (confusing, as that is . . . not what “safe space” means) and claims that she is just the latest data point in a “disturbingly large set.”
Follow Christine Emba's opinionsFollow
But Greenbaum is wrong. The removal of her piece does not mean that writers everywhere are being fallen upon by a “predatory mob,” that they are now constantly subject to “intimidation,” or even that her “commonsensical opinions” are now “beyond the pale of acceptable opinion.” It does not mean, as she seems to imply, there is a looming crisis of free speech.
It means that Business Insider did not want Daniella Greenbaum’s column.
Every week, it seems, some persecuted pundit publishes a new column complaining about censorship — usually to an audience of millions. It has become all too common to moan that free speech is under attack, free thinking is dead, and that an all-powerful cabal of college students and social media users is crushing common sense under their heels.
But here’s the thing: “Free speech” does not mean “the right to say whatever you want without criticism on social media,” or even “the right to run your columns without being subject to executive decision-making.” It means “freedom to speak.” Which Greenbaum clearly has, whether she’s published by Business Insider or not.
I have written pieces for The Post, where I am a columnist, and have had them summarily rejected (this is embarrassing, but I will admit it, because I am speaking freely here). This does not mean that my column is being turned into a “safe space” or that I am being suppressed. It means that I have editors.
Perhaps Business Insider should have discussed the issues with Greenbaum’s piece before it was posted, or perhaps they only realized that there were problems after readers complained. Yes, in general, removing a piece post-publication is bad journalistic form. But the fact that it was removed does not mean that the “social media mob” has won. An attention to cultural sensitivity is not a vendetta against “controversial views,” it’s common courtesy — you might even call it “civility” — in a pluralistic public square.
I tend to agree with the well-worn adage (which Greenbaum invokes) that the remedy for speech is “more speech, not enforced silence.” But I increasingly worry that its originator, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, is being misunderstood.
“More speech” should not mean “trumpet your opinions even more loudly in order to drown out everyone else’s, and complain when others want you to quiet down.” Rather, it should mean that you use more speech to interact with the speech of others. Discuss. Engage with their arguments.
That might mean, for instance, that Greenbaum could have asked her editor: “Why do you dislike the term ‘social-justice warriors’?” or asked her colleagues, “Why do you find it offensive that I invoke rapists in a piece on trans people?” (Note: The answer should be obvious). A helpful use of free speech might have been to suss out the real locus of disagreement with her piece — is there merit to the suggestion that more transgender actors should be given a chance to play transgender roles? — and then write another to refute it, rather than to noisily resign.
In fact, that resignation — a self-silencing, as it were, not one brought on by any “social media mob” — comes across more as a way to make a home for oneself among the burgeoning and profitable crowd of free-speech warriors (those brave souls who are being stifled to the tune of millions of readers, clicks and dollars per year) than to further the cause of speech itself.
Here’s my suggestion: If Greenbaum is looking for a real free-speech crisis, I’d suggest she visit Russia, where journalists are being picked off, or China, where dissidents are being imprisoned, rather than Business Insider, where authors are being subjected to . . . editorial review.
But feel free to disagree! That’s what free speech is all about.
Read more: