Author name: admin

Classics buffs and anyone who remembers what they learned in high school had a good laugh on Twitter on May 21 when a Florida state representative tweeted this hot take: As Twitter users were all-too-happy to point out, Socrates WAS cancelled. In fact, he was put to death for spreading unpopular views. It’s a humorous reminder that “cancel culture” is nothing new. Societies have been punishing and silencing those with unpopular views for all recorded history. American free speech laws are a big step in the right direction, and we can celebrate that—unlike Socrates—Americans won’t be forced to drink hemlock if some politician thinks our views are corrupting the youth. However, free speech laws don’t protect us from retribution from society. Cancel culture is nothing new in American society either. During the 40s and 50s, rumors that someone might be a Soviet sympathizer could end their carrier, no matter how spotty the evidence. As recently as the 80s and 90s, coming out as gay or lesbian often resulted in devastating societal ostracization. So why all the talk about cancel culture now? There are perhaps two reasons for this: The first is social media. Up until very recently, unless you were a journalist or public figure, your reach was limited to your immediate network. Media outlets, politicians, and celebrities were really the only ones who could lead large-scale “cancelling.” Now, someone anywhere in the country can see that a literary agent has joined Parler and Gab, get others to join them in tweeting about it, and get her fired. Every day people can instantly become the subjects of national ire—like the “smirking” high school student or the baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding. False narratives or way overblown reactions can snowball quickly, ruining people’s lives who have no chance at defending themselves. The second reason is that the targets have shifted. Conservatives are making a lot of noise about cancel culture now because they perceive themselves, with justifiable cause, as the primary targets. That’s a fairly recent development, and as history shows, the targets will shift again. It’s time to break the cycle. Let’s engage with views we disagree with instead of blacklisting the view holders. Let’s speak up for those being unfairly attacked. And let’s make sure as a society that we’re playing by rules based on true equity and justice, not revenge and power struggles. The past is filled with examples of people who have been cancelled for holding unpopular views—but the future doesn’t have to be. Maybe with enough work, we can create a society where Socrates would finally be safe.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was once committed on principle to defending free speech for all Americans without exception. The ACLU even defended the right of a 1977 neo-Nazi protest in Skokie, Illinois on the grounds that free speech must be upheld even if hateful. The ACLU of today has betrayed that principled heritage, too often putting fashionable “woke” ideology ahead of their stated mission. One egregious example prompted an active NTC Campaign: A Smith College undergraduate claimed that she was harassed by security just for “eating while black” and posted to social media the names of several college workers supposedly responsible. The ACLU uncritically repeated her claims, helping propel a campaign that destroyed the careers of several working-class employees – who faced harassment, death threats, and local infamy that prevented them from finding new employment. Eventually, an investigation exonerated the workers (the student had been in a restricted area and staff had merely followed protocol). Yet the ACLU doubled down, claiming that the incident was nonetheless an example of racism – refusing to let the truth or innocent lives being ruined get in the way of a good narrative. Given the ACLU’s troubling downward spiral, it is noteworthy that the organization has taken a principled stand in a new Supreme Court case– taking the side of Americans for Prosperity, a right-leaning advocacy organization associated with the Koch brothers, against a California policy enacted by Kamala Harris. Here the ACLU has put mission over partisanship to defend AFP’s speech and privacy rights. Perhaps all is not lost, and mainstream America can recover its principles. It certainly won’t happen without grassroots pressure. It’s all the more important to hold corrupted institutions accountable to their own missions and founding values. If you haven’t already, join the campaign to tell the ACLU to make amends for what they did at Smith College, and check out the NTC campaigns page to find other opportunities to help get our society back on track!

Earlier this week, donation website GoFundMe suddenly deleted a campaign created by a group of parents trying to challenge the intense promotion of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in their local school system. The campaign had been started by a parent who learned that some parents, teachers and other school officials had launched a Facebook group to personally target parents of children in the public school system who raised concerns about CRT. GoFundMe did not give an explicit reason why they shut down the campaign – and technically they don’t have to. The company’s “terms of service” make it clear that it has “sole discretion” within a number of broad categories over what is acceptable on their platform. The New Tolerance Campaign exists to fight back against biased tolerance by calling out hypocrisy, not by trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy. So, situations like this beg the question: Is this behavior hypocritical or just obnoxious? GoFundMe bans “intolerance of any kind relating to race,” the interpretation of which is at their “sole discretion.”  Did the deleted campaign constitute intolerance? Many who subscribe to the CRT view may genuinely believe it did, while others would vehemently disagree. So, the platform isn’t necessarily violating its stated principles, and it’s difficult to come up with an opposite but equivalent campaign to use for comparison. NTC encourages platforms like GoFundMe to err on the side of free speech – or at least maintain clear and consistent standards. Given that the platform hosts many politically-charged fundraising campaigns, the company should be clear about what steps over the line and what does not. In any case, those who disagree with GoFundMe’s actions are free to do their fundraising elsewhere.