It was so bizarre how "Hahahaha Freeze Peach" became a thing in the 2010s, how people assumed free speech privileges Powerful White Men over everyone else. But like you said, it's exactly the opposite!
My theory, which isn't new, is that online progressives got so high on their own supply after two dominant Obama wins (plus the gay marriage win) that they assumed the pulse of the country and the culture would be with them forever. Whoops! Not how history works!
I remember when the wildly popular Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour on TV was cancelled 1969 by NBC because of their opposition to the Vietnam War (and to network censorship). And replaced by Hee Haw! The brothers sued, and won, and moved their show to ABC (pausing here as a nod to historical irony). The First Amendment survived, and it will always survive.
Back in the 2010s, there was a prevailing sentiment among the left, that any left-of-center person who would appear on Fox, right-wing podcasts, etc. to speak to their host and amongst their audience was “platforming” them or legitimize their ideas, which was tantamount to endorsing bigotry. (For example, the blowback Bernie received for appearing on Joe Rogan). It struck me as odd because these people already had a platform and their ideas are legitimized by virtue of having millions of people tuning into their programs. By refusing to engage, it just made the left look like a bunch of whiney babies who can’t handle disagreement or debate. I'm not saying this sentiment is necessarily correct, but these are the optics.
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, I was astonished to see how many people on the left still cling onto this sentiment, despite our repeated political failures. Now more than ever we need to be going into these spaces and pulling people away from the abyss. We need to be talking to each other more. We need to learn how to disagree and stand for our principles without resorting to censorial tactics (this is not to say we need to tolerate bigotry, but to better effectively push back at it). We should be engaging, persuading, meeting people where they are--but that takes patience, skill, and determination. It's hard work, but unfortunately, it's less libidinally satisfying than sitting on social media all day shouting "that's problematic!"
Whether we like it or not, the bile that Kirk spewed is within the mainstream of contemporary conservative views, and continuing to disengage with it is only going to keep the MAGA toxicity festering and metastizing. Free speech and constant dialogue is more important than ever.
I think the problem is that often people go on right-wing platforms, or invite right-wingers onto their platforms, and just treat them as friendly and reasonable people to pal around with. That's how you make friends with people in the same industry and get asked back on their shows after all. And doing that is indeed pretty reprehensible because you're legitimizing those right-wingers without pushing back on them. On the other hand you can go into these interactions in a more confrontational way, or at least in a way where you try to really push your views on their audience, but that's a recipe for not getting asked on again. So I'd love people to do that second one but I understand the impulse to just discount that as a common occurrence and assume anyone going on those shows is doing the counterproductive non-confrontational version.
100% agree. How Andrew Neil handled Ben Shapiro in that famous BBC interview is the playbook on how to handle these people, and ironically he’s a Tory. He pushed back on Ben, called him on his bullshit, but never yelled at him, denigrated his supporters, etc. There’s a way to advocate for what you believe in and stand by your convictions while keeping a cool demeanor. And ultimately that’s what people mean by “moderate.” It has much less to do with your ideas, but how you express them.
As usual with this take, the idea the "self-censorship" and "censure" are the same as removing the protections of the First Amendment is the fig leaf that allows the critique to survive. The First Amendment only protects speech from interference by the State. Everything else, as you say, may be cultivated actively by culture and use, but the First Amendment does not simply provide the right to say anything you want to anyone at any time. If, instead of pretending that Twitter was a newfound Boston Common in 1776, the anti-woke liberals had paid attention to the nuances of the argument, you could have responded to the actual issue. But instead, you ran with the Right's bad faith framing and got wound up about "de-platforming" and "censorship" by private actors who 100% have the right to censor. The term is so rich with associations of Russian Imperial censors telling Dostoevsky what he could or couldn't publish within Russia, but despite redolence that isn't relevant. It is 100% legal for any social media platform to censor whatever viewpoint it wants, and if you don't like that feature, then both capitalist pressure not to and legal pressure to bar that permission are possible methods. But you know why "free speech" became right-coded. it's because you helped make it that way, by fooling yourself into believing that the Right's bad faith power grab was your fight too.
Great essay. I too, although most would consider me a progressive (at least on many issues) agree that the Left went bonkers in the 2010s and especially in 2020 in trying to stymie freedom of speech, on college campuses and elsewhere. That was wrong on the merits, and pragmatically foolish as well. I hope we've learned our lesson.
Nah, if they ever take power again they'll do the same thing. Free speech is cooked, it has no constituency of supporters. Ross Barkan has the courage to speak out about it now, but if the left were still in power he would be too afraid.
The genuine widespread commitment to free speech truly is one of the best things about America. You can see it in how so many of our political arguments play out around one side accusing the other of violating free speech rights - it's an issue voters care about and successfully portraying the other side as censorious is basically a win-elections-free card.
There's a lot on free speech as a concept here, but not much on how it's defined, what its boundaries are, or even whom defines them. Do the "left" and the "right" agree on what free speech is? I don't think so!
And what of the Supreme Court? This body has long functioned as a vessel for the whims of the capitalist class. The McCarthy era saw both public and private blacklisting and interrogation of those even accused of association with the Left. United States v. O'Brien (1968) found that burning draft cards could be considered criminal as it was against the government interests. This is not to mention the on-the-record assassinations, extrajudicial killings, and support of fascist paramilitary groups abroad. This piece highlights an "unprecedented" assault on free speech, but I question if there was ever such a period this country had such a thing. Do right wing speakers not being able to have a YouTube account or book a college campus really compare when we look at US history?
When we think of Mahmoud Khalil or Rümeysa Öztürk, similar claims of being 'subversive' to government interests have been levied against them. Boundaries already exist, and can and will be enforced. However, the issue has been these boundaries have always been set by the ruling class upon the working class, and never the other way around.
The real problem I have with hope, now, though I haven’t lost it.
The 2025 group, The Heritage Foundation, Hillsdale College, Carl Rove’s work and planning, Clarence Thomas sitting without speaking for 30 years, the redistricting. The plans that have come to fruition have been in the works for decades. The Bushes, Dick Cheney. Trump is PT Barnum at the front of the circus parade through the town square.
I am given the greatest sense of desperation by the U.S. Supreme Court’s abdication of duty to the Constitution and legal precedent without the blink of an eye by the long sought and achieved majority. The Court has always been, with limited variation, in support of precedent and the Constitution. That is lost, not easily changed, only slowly. Congress due to redistricting, a wild card. The conducting of elections? We have seen the lack of honor for or adherence to that by powers that be.
So as my heart is in the same place as yours, my hope is very desperate.
I thank you for your time if you read this. I have great respect for you, your thoughts and your writings which far exceed mine.
Gee if only someone had warned us what would happen if we gave these tools to trump. But we were too busy trying to manipulate the law to make sure he was in jail, bankrupt, and removed from the ballot.
After all that it’s pretty hard to beleive the left had any respect for free speech as anything other than a vehicle to get where they wanted. In power. Those of us silly enough to believe these principles applied to everyone stood silent
It was so bizarre how "Hahahaha Freeze Peach" became a thing in the 2010s, how people assumed free speech privileges Powerful White Men over everyone else. But like you said, it's exactly the opposite!
My theory, which isn't new, is that online progressives got so high on their own supply after two dominant Obama wins (plus the gay marriage win) that they assumed the pulse of the country and the culture would be with them forever. Whoops! Not how history works!
I think the "freeze peach" stuff was more about mocking bad faith arguments than any lack of commitment to free speech.
Excellent essay.
I remember when the wildly popular Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour on TV was cancelled 1969 by NBC because of their opposition to the Vietnam War (and to network censorship). And replaced by Hee Haw! The brothers sued, and won, and moved their show to ABC (pausing here as a nod to historical irony). The First Amendment survived, and it will always survive.
Back in the 2010s, there was a prevailing sentiment among the left, that any left-of-center person who would appear on Fox, right-wing podcasts, etc. to speak to their host and amongst their audience was “platforming” them or legitimize their ideas, which was tantamount to endorsing bigotry. (For example, the blowback Bernie received for appearing on Joe Rogan). It struck me as odd because these people already had a platform and their ideas are legitimized by virtue of having millions of people tuning into their programs. By refusing to engage, it just made the left look like a bunch of whiney babies who can’t handle disagreement or debate. I'm not saying this sentiment is necessarily correct, but these are the optics.
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, I was astonished to see how many people on the left still cling onto this sentiment, despite our repeated political failures. Now more than ever we need to be going into these spaces and pulling people away from the abyss. We need to be talking to each other more. We need to learn how to disagree and stand for our principles without resorting to censorial tactics (this is not to say we need to tolerate bigotry, but to better effectively push back at it). We should be engaging, persuading, meeting people where they are--but that takes patience, skill, and determination. It's hard work, but unfortunately, it's less libidinally satisfying than sitting on social media all day shouting "that's problematic!"
Whether we like it or not, the bile that Kirk spewed is within the mainstream of contemporary conservative views, and continuing to disengage with it is only going to keep the MAGA toxicity festering and metastizing. Free speech and constant dialogue is more important than ever.
I think the problem is that often people go on right-wing platforms, or invite right-wingers onto their platforms, and just treat them as friendly and reasonable people to pal around with. That's how you make friends with people in the same industry and get asked back on their shows after all. And doing that is indeed pretty reprehensible because you're legitimizing those right-wingers without pushing back on them. On the other hand you can go into these interactions in a more confrontational way, or at least in a way where you try to really push your views on their audience, but that's a recipe for not getting asked on again. So I'd love people to do that second one but I understand the impulse to just discount that as a common occurrence and assume anyone going on those shows is doing the counterproductive non-confrontational version.
100% agree. How Andrew Neil handled Ben Shapiro in that famous BBC interview is the playbook on how to handle these people, and ironically he’s a Tory. He pushed back on Ben, called him on his bullshit, but never yelled at him, denigrated his supporters, etc. There’s a way to advocate for what you believe in and stand by your convictions while keeping a cool demeanor. And ultimately that’s what people mean by “moderate.” It has much less to do with your ideas, but how you express them.
As usual with this take, the idea the "self-censorship" and "censure" are the same as removing the protections of the First Amendment is the fig leaf that allows the critique to survive. The First Amendment only protects speech from interference by the State. Everything else, as you say, may be cultivated actively by culture and use, but the First Amendment does not simply provide the right to say anything you want to anyone at any time. If, instead of pretending that Twitter was a newfound Boston Common in 1776, the anti-woke liberals had paid attention to the nuances of the argument, you could have responded to the actual issue. But instead, you ran with the Right's bad faith framing and got wound up about "de-platforming" and "censorship" by private actors who 100% have the right to censor. The term is so rich with associations of Russian Imperial censors telling Dostoevsky what he could or couldn't publish within Russia, but despite redolence that isn't relevant. It is 100% legal for any social media platform to censor whatever viewpoint it wants, and if you don't like that feature, then both capitalist pressure not to and legal pressure to bar that permission are possible methods. But you know why "free speech" became right-coded. it's because you helped make it that way, by fooling yourself into believing that the Right's bad faith power grab was your fight too.
Great essay. I too, although most would consider me a progressive (at least on many issues) agree that the Left went bonkers in the 2010s and especially in 2020 in trying to stymie freedom of speech, on college campuses and elsewhere. That was wrong on the merits, and pragmatically foolish as well. I hope we've learned our lesson.
Nah, if they ever take power again they'll do the same thing. Free speech is cooked, it has no constituency of supporters. Ross Barkan has the courage to speak out about it now, but if the left were still in power he would be too afraid.
The genuine widespread commitment to free speech truly is one of the best things about America. You can see it in how so many of our political arguments play out around one side accusing the other of violating free speech rights - it's an issue voters care about and successfully portraying the other side as censorious is basically a win-elections-free card.
There's a lot on free speech as a concept here, but not much on how it's defined, what its boundaries are, or even whom defines them. Do the "left" and the "right" agree on what free speech is? I don't think so!
And what of the Supreme Court? This body has long functioned as a vessel for the whims of the capitalist class. The McCarthy era saw both public and private blacklisting and interrogation of those even accused of association with the Left. United States v. O'Brien (1968) found that burning draft cards could be considered criminal as it was against the government interests. This is not to mention the on-the-record assassinations, extrajudicial killings, and support of fascist paramilitary groups abroad. This piece highlights an "unprecedented" assault on free speech, but I question if there was ever such a period this country had such a thing. Do right wing speakers not being able to have a YouTube account or book a college campus really compare when we look at US history?
When we think of Mahmoud Khalil or Rümeysa Öztürk, similar claims of being 'subversive' to government interests have been levied against them. Boundaries already exist, and can and will be enforced. However, the issue has been these boundaries have always been set by the ruling class upon the working class, and never the other way around.
The real problem I have with hope, now, though I haven’t lost it.
The 2025 group, The Heritage Foundation, Hillsdale College, Carl Rove’s work and planning, Clarence Thomas sitting without speaking for 30 years, the redistricting. The plans that have come to fruition have been in the works for decades. The Bushes, Dick Cheney. Trump is PT Barnum at the front of the circus parade through the town square.
I am given the greatest sense of desperation by the U.S. Supreme Court’s abdication of duty to the Constitution and legal precedent without the blink of an eye by the long sought and achieved majority. The Court has always been, with limited variation, in support of precedent and the Constitution. That is lost, not easily changed, only slowly. Congress due to redistricting, a wild card. The conducting of elections? We have seen the lack of honor for or adherence to that by powers that be.
So as my heart is in the same place as yours, my hope is very desperate.
I thank you for your time if you read this. I have great respect for you, your thoughts and your writings which far exceed mine.
Gee if only someone had warned us what would happen if we gave these tools to trump. But we were too busy trying to manipulate the law to make sure he was in jail, bankrupt, and removed from the ballot.
After all that it’s pretty hard to beleive the left had any respect for free speech as anything other than a vehicle to get where they wanted. In power. Those of us silly enough to believe these principles applied to everyone stood silent
Stir it up Ross! It’s beautiful.