Under normal circumstances, I would sign the open letter printed in Harper’s in a heartbeat. It calls for an open, tolerant, robust debate on controversial issues and I am, like all liberals and progressives, 100% in support of such freedom of speech.
The problem is that a truly open, substantive debate is impossible to hold today in the mainstream media. As a result, this open letter distorts the situation and, while I agree with nearly every conceptual argument it makes, I wouldn’t sign the letter at the present time.
I’ll focus on one of their complaints as an example. The letter states:
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces…
This is, more than likely, a reference to the firing of James Bennett, op-ed editor of the Times, for running an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton who wrote, and the Times published, this:
One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.
The pace of looting and disorder may fluctuate from night to night, but it’s past time to support local law enforcement with federal authority. Some governors have mobilized the National Guard, yet others refuse, and in some cases the rioters still outnumber the police and Guard combined. In these circumstances, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to employ the military “or any other means” in “cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws.”
This is the kind of “controversial piece ” we are supposed to tolerate: fullthroated advocacy of the US military to threaten and intimidate American citizens.
The problem is that this isn’t a “controversial” opinion. It’s simply the ravings of an extremist who should have no business with access to a mainstream editorial page. It is the equivalent of publishing a defense of the Rohingya massacres by Ahsin Wirathu. A responsible newspaper knows better than to disseminate such toxic trash.
The problem is that the mainstream discourse has become profoundly skewed to wards the publication of controversial far-right opinions without context or explanation. There is no “leftwing equivalent” to Cotton’s extremism that would ever see the light of day. To even provide a hypothetical example here would be irresponsible on my part.
If only the letter urging tolerance addressed the very real problem of irresponsible context-free publication of extreme rightwing ideas. If only it truly grappled with the complexities of publishing a wide range of genuine opinions when there are bad actors who seek to undermine the entire concept of a free, substantive, and open public discourse. But it didn’t and so, sadly, while I respect enormously many of the thoughtful people who signed the letter and agree in principle with much of what it says, I believe it is mostly irrelevant to the real issues of public debate we are facing today.
Being open to new, unusual, and controversial ideas does not mean I have to behave like a naive fool. I will not countenance the context-free advocacy of violent ideologies in mainstream media merely because some ambitious Republican wants to dogwhistle to his or her Neo-Nazi base. I will not excuse the propagation of dangerous lies and falsehoods about scientific facts merely because some Republican ignoramus promoted them.
It is not responsible to publish extremism in the way the Bennett did. He fully deserved to be fired for not properly vetting that reprehensible column. The problem lies not with those of us who reacted with disgust but with a media culture that permits Cotton (and so many other rightwingers) to get away with propagating their deplorable ideas.