Splicetoday

Politics & Media
Sep 23, 2016, 10:52AM

Glenn Reynolds Hates Free Speech

Don't pretend speech doesn't matter.

Shoot protests 142.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

You’d think that people who support free speech would be vigorous defenders of the value of speech. But oddly, that isn't the case. On the contrary, when people defend speech, they often do so specifically on the grounds that the speech in question is worthless. Speech, to free speech defenders, is presented as a joke, the content of which is irrelevant, since it will affect no one. 

Nick Gillespie, the editor of Reason.com, demonstrated this contradiction recently in a full-throated defense of Glenn Reynolds. Reynolds was briefly banned from Twitter after posting a picture of North Carolina protestors blocking the highway. Reynolds added the caption, "Run them down."

Gillespie delicately refused to comment on whether he thought that running down protestors was a good idea. Instead, he argued, that Reynolds was not really saying what he said, or that no one would think he meant for anyone to act on it. "Whatever you think of the tastefulness of his suggestion regarding the protesters in Charlotte," Gillespie writes, "the idea that he is seriously inciting any sort of actual or real threat is risible."

The problem here is that Reynolds wrote follow-up posts on his blog in which he makes it quite clear that he was completely serious. Gillespie quotes him: "Sorry, blocking the interstate is dangerous, and trapping people in their cars is a threat. Driving on is self-preservation, especially when we've had mobs destroying property and injuring and killing people." Reynolds is arguing that when protestors walk across a highway in front of your car, you should gun the engine, and let the bodies fall where they may.

The reaction on Twitter suggests that Reynolds' many fans and followers took him seriously. Numerous people echo his arguments for murder; protestors are a threat, the Twitter interlocutors declare. You need to save yourself by driving your car into them and injuring or killing them. Reynolds and his followers do not treat this argument as a "risible" suggestion. They talk about it coldly and directly, as what they should do, if they’re ever confronted with a protest.

Still, Gillespie insists that it's obvious that Reynolds' tweet is not a threat to murder protestors. As he said to me via email: "Nobody would be influenced by his tweet to run down protesters (with whom I sympathize as a libertarian who has for decades been commissioning, editing, and writing stories about police abuse). If somebody decided that Glenn Reynolds was commanding them to rent a car and drive it through a crowd of people, that nutjob is responsible for his actions, just as Mark David Chapman (not J.D. Salinger) was when he pulled the trigger on John Lennon."

The first parenthetical in Gillespie's statement is interesting. He says he’s spent decades writing and editing stories about police abuse. But why do that if writing doesn't influence people? Surely the point of criticizing police abuse is to get people to end police abuse. Otherwise, why bother? And if it's possible for a story about police abuse to influence people to sympathize with protestors, why isn't it possible for a tweet urging violence against protestors to lead someone to commit violence against protestors?

Gillespie argues that Reynolds' statement doesn't rise to the level of true threat—which is probably true. But Reynolds is deliberately advocating for the curtailment of free speech rights. He is saying, on Twitter and in his blog that protests are illegitimate, and that protestors should be violently attacked. If you're talking about free speech issues, shouldn't that get a mention? Yes, Reynolds didn't actually attack anyone, but a climate in which violent acts against protestors are encouraged and justified surely makes protest more difficult and dangerous. Reynolds is making a case against free speech, and by all appearances doing his best to curtail the speech of others. Shouldn't libertarians care about that?

I'm sure banning Reynolds didn't do much good, and in general Twitter's scattershot approach to abusive speech is worse than useless. But if you're going to defend his right to speak, do it without pretending that his words don't matter. Reynolds wasn't joking; he's a man with a large platform encouraging his many followers to commit racist violence against people exercising their right to assembly and protest. He means what he says, and people who listen to him, and take him seriously, understand him perfectly.

"God help all of us who write a lot (whether for fun or for profit) the day that our words are endowed with magical powers to command our readers like some sort of zombie army," Gillespie told me. To which I'd respond, God help writers and editors everywhere if our chief moral commitment consists of repetitively denying the possibility that someone, somewhere, might actually listen to what we have to say.

Discussion
  • Really not seeing how Reynolds is deliberately advocating for the curtailment of free speech rights, unless you think that right is guaranteed in the middle of traffic, which I'm pretty sure it isn't. Being against free speech on a highway isn't much to be concerned about, although telling people to run them over makes him an asshole.

    Responses to this comment
  • Protest by its nature is meant to inconvenience people. If the right of assembly means anything, it means assembling occasionally in places where you're inconveniencing others. Calling for the death of protestors who inconvenience you is intended to frighten and intimidate people into shutting up. It's a deliberate effort to curtail speech and protest, imo.

    Responses to this comment
  • I mean, these lines are always murky, but flapping your hands because someoen was banned from a private service for a couple hours vs. the possible harm of calling for violence against protestors...I dunno.

    Responses to this comment
  • No, the purpose of protest is to get people's attention and make a political point. People don't get swayed because they were inconvenienced. Inconveniencing people is the BLM version of protest, and blocking a highway goes well beyond inconveniencing people anyway.

    Responses to this comment
  • So...this is complete nonsense, and probably not worth arguing about. You could read this, though, if you'd like. As Masket says, you're the white liberal MLK was talking to in the Birmingham Jail speech. https://psmag.com/for-most-there-s-never-a-right-time-to-protest-8177404f34e#.3rt4ncavu

    Responses to this comment
  • or if it's too much trouble...Civil Rights movement was not trying to change individual people's minds. it was trying to create a crisis situation in which elites felt great pressure to address the issue. MLK used many of these same tactics (including blocking highways: http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2016/07/mlk-would-never-shut-down-a-freeway-and-6-other-myths-about-the-civil-rights-movement-and-black-lives-matter/)

    Responses to this comment
  • Figured it wouldn't take too long to get you into your default condescension mode, but why don't you take a look at this and tell me more about free speech and MLK. https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/778946897478356992?s=09

    Responses to this comment
  • Noah, how'd you feel if a loved one couldn't get to the hospital on time because of a protest? Or if a loved one was shot during a home invasion because police could not get there in time because protesters blocked the way? I'm all for protesting injustices but very much against hurting the innocent in order to make a point.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm 100 percent with Texan on this one. I don't care if you're elite or dirt-poor, blocking highways as a form of protest is heinous. As Texan said, people need to get to hospitals, sometimes life and death situations. Missing the first 45 minutes of a movie, no big deal. But, as an elite, Noah, you never miss an opportunity to hand down wisdom from Mt. Krugman.

    Responses to this comment
  • Yes, Noah is reflexively condescending, which he substitutes for an argument. He says that protest is "meant" to inconvenience people, indicating he can't tell the difference between goals and tactics. Protest is "meant" to effect social and political change. One tactic of such protest could be inconveniencing people. Another tactic could be making sure you don't inconvenience other people. It's helpful when being condescending to at least be correct.

    Responses to this comment
  • Blocking highways is worse than a tweet. Whatever happened to sticks n stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I'm inclined to agree with Clint Eastwood on this one - young people protesting on highways are clueless cowards.

    Responses to this comment
  • Beck, it's hard not to be condescendign with you because you have no idea what you're talking about in most instances. Also,you're super touchy about the fact that you don't know much, which makes it hard to resist tweaking you.// We all realize that MLK protested on highways, right? A. Philip Randolph threatened to shut down Washington during wartime. Civil rights protestors deliberately interfered with public transit. And so forth. "protest should not inconvenience anyone ever" is just not how successful protests have ever been conducted. And yes, protests are meant to cause inconvenience, because inconvenience draws attention and makes people uncomfortable, which in turn forces elites to take action.// But...you're all pretty much confirming the point of the piece, which was that Reynolds was not joking when he suggested running over protestors, and that, in fact, people (not Nick, but many people) find that idea congenial.// Texan, how'd you feel if a loved one were shot to death by a cop, and then people came out of the woodwork to concocting hypothetical scenarios to justify to themselves that your efforts to change things made you the aggressor?

  • Also, aren't you all mostly libertarianish? why the eagerness to side with cops all of a sudden?

    Responses to this comment
  • I'll take that as a compliment, coming from someone so ignorant he can't tell the difference between a tactic and a goal, and someone so sloppy he can't even spell correctly when he's trying to put someone down, which is the one time you want to get the spelling correct, if you're trying to look smart,. which is normally your goal above all else, being the pretentious pseudo-intellectual you are

    Responses to this comment
  • Is there some kind of pre-agreement going on here? Did you all agree to pretend nobody in the cars was threatened? No cars were damaged with bricks or rocks? A truck wasn't burned? Reginald Denny was a fiction? Reynolds made it clear that driving on was the thing to if one is threatened or reasonably fears for his safety--the latter being a self-defense defense. Did you all decide to pretend this was not an issue? What happened? Of course, he could have said, "drive on", in which case you would have been screaming that he meant to pursue and run down peaceful protestors. Tell you what. Next time there's a riot, go get yourself stuck in a protestor's traffic jam. No matter what happens, don't take the trans out of park. And open your windows. Because you wouldn't want to be against free speech. Sheesh. You all figured the rest of us were as dumb as you are pretending to be? Come on.

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm not justifying anything Noah. I'm just explaining cause and effect to you. What's next, your defense of drunk drivers who make it home safely from a charity event? What about looters who steal and vandalize mom and pop businesses because they are angry? As for being "libertarianish", what does that have to do with being a responsible citizen. I'm neither pro, nor, con cop. I am in favor of individuals being responsible for their actions and that includes both civil servants and civilians equally. After all, I don't recall MLK saying that he had a dream of causing innocent people harm in order to get his way.

    Responses to this comment
  • Noah, is it really so hard to concede that someone has made a valid point that might require you to modify your position? You're really beginning to sound a lot like Trump.

    Responses to this comment
  • This is a good piece. The fact that a major libertarian voice's knee-jerk reaction to disruptive black collective action is "run them over" does not reflect well on that movement, but it continues the proud libertarian tradition of hostility to black political action going back to at least Barry Goldwater and Ayn Rand.

    Responses to this comment
  • Texan, I have productive arguments all the time in which I modify my position. Not with you or Beck or Richard, though, very often.// Thanks Josh. I'm glad you liked the piece.

    Responses to this comment
  • So...Reginald Denny did the right thing?

    Responses to this comment
  • Ok, Noah, if you really want to keep this up for whatever, then I can oblige you. Not having a productive discussion couldn't possibly be on you, right?  Because you're all about promoting productive discussion, instead of being a sniveling little prick, am I right?  Like how it went with you and Freddie deBoer, who should be your natural ally, maybe? Let me quote Freddie on you: "He is one of these writers that has made a living being a professional The Only Righteous White Man Alive." Now that is right on the money! I think most would agree that Freddie is a much more authentic voice of the left than you are, and he sure did see through you quickly. "Beacon of political morals" is how he described you, and once again, bingo. He wrote that you read his work with "manic attentiveness, poring over my tweets, looking for something to seize on for one of his goodness performances. It seems exhausting, but I guess it’s a living." Yes, you're a master of the goodness performance. I like this one too: "One of Berlatsky’s constant tactics is to chum the waters by lying about what someone else said, throwing it on Twitter, and trusting that no one will actually check if it’s true or not." Looks like there are people out there with some stature who doubt your character and honesty in no uncertain terms. I put this out here so people can see it's not just me grinding some personal axe against you. I'd say Freddie's got you pegged. I tend to believe him when he writes of you: "It’s all performance, no practice. They aren’t engaged in political action; they’re engaged in political posturing." Ouch, again! Freddie TKO'd you. You talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. All empty words. I'd say he's calling you a phony, which certainly rings true. As he puts it, you've "monetized a certain kind of affected progressive posturing." Well, at least you have Aurthur Chu, your fellow saint, to console you. The two Most Righteous Men Alive.

    Responses to this comment
  • Pow, right in the kisser!

    Responses to this comment
  • Oh, good grief. You go whining to Freddie deBoer to help you? And now you've got Texan cheering you on; that must mean you're really...clever. Or something.

    Responses to this comment
  • Whining? No, I just went back and reread something I saw months ago but never mentioned to you until you gave me a reason to. Anyone who wants to read the entirety of Freddie's brutal takedown of you can go here: http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/08/30/one-rule/

    Responses to this comment
  • I think Freddie's mostly a joke...though I know he's an idol for many independent self-declared iconoclasts such as yourself.// Tbf, Freddie would be appalled at the islamophobic racist nonsense you traffic in. So if you need to kiss someone's feet to prove your free thinking bona fides, better him than Sam Harris.

    Responses to this comment
  • Since Freddie's "a joke," I'm probably not going to worry too much about your claim that he'd disapprove of me. Paying heed to jokes is bad policy, I'm certain you'd agree.

    Responses to this comment
  • Sure, I wouldn't worry too much about what Freddie says. You do in fact seem to worry about it...but if you were to stop, I think that would be for the best, probably.//and as I said, he's not as much of a joke as Sam Harris. If you're determined to pledge your allegiance to a joke, you could do worse than Freddie...and you have!

    Responses to this comment
  • Both Freddie and Sam write coherently and persuasively, a skill that eludes you and your fellow regressive leftists, who are mostly about posturing and gaining approval from particular interest groups. This is the standard practice of the useful idiot, but it's such a boring cliché.

    Responses to this comment
  • Nah; they just flatter you by telling you you're special, and you eat it up. But that's fine. Good to have something to get you through the day.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment