I first heard of Laurie Penny through my good friend Robert Stacy McCain, who pretty much has no use for her:
Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) was the subject of an item here yesterday because of her quarrel with lesbian feminist Cathy Brennan, an argument that highlights the profound schism between radicals like Brennan (who are and always have been the core of the feminist movement) and trendy opportunists like Ms. Penny. The American reader may ask, “Who the hell is Laurie Penny, and why the hell are you writing about her?”
Briefly, then: An ambitious young British journalist who attended exclusive private schools (which are for peculiar reasons called “public schools” in England), Ms. Penny graduated from Oxford and then went to New York. There, she was rescued from death by actor Ryan Gosling, an incident that became the subject of an embarrassingly narcissistic article at Gawker. Ms. Penny is a certain type — a “posh bird,” as the Brits would say, whose ostentatious leftism is a fashionable pose among many upper-class youth — and as such is well on her way to becoming the Most Despised Woman in England. She came to my attention here in the States only because, in researching my “Sex Trouble” series on radical feminism, I was browsing Amazon for recent feminist books and came across Ms. Penny’s new volume, Unspeakable Things: Sex, Lies and Revolution. Ranked #6 by Amazon in the “Gender Studies” category, and #11 in “Feminist Theory,” this seemed relevant to my project.
With our American reader’s questions asked and answered, then, we proceed to explain what no English reader needs to be told, namely that Laurie Penny is an impudent young fool with a penchant for making an utter spectacle of herself. As soon as I blogged about her yesterday, comments on the blog and feedback on Twitter began to fill up with notices of Ms. Penny’s previous self-inflicted embarrassments, including this public implosion in June 2012:
The rest is available on Mr McCain’s website, which I shan’t quote further here.
Now, I wouldn’t be particularly interested in this British posh bird, but I found myself particularly amused that Miss Penny was exercising her freedom of speech and of the press to criticize freedom of speech and of the press.
When does free speech absolutism become moral cowardice?
by Laurie Penny | September 10, 2021
Imagine you’re throwing a party and somebody kicks off. It was going so well. You spent ages deciding on drinks and making a playlist, and now some blowhard is off on a homophobic rant. He’s not holding back, either. He’s getting loud and mouthing off with the vilest bigotry you can imagine, and people are getting uncomfortable. It’s your party. What do you do?
What you do depends on lots of things. What sort of party is this? Is it your birthday, or a rave, or Christmas dinner, or a fundraiser for sick kids? Who is this guy? Did you invite him? Is he an old friend who’s going through something and is very drunk and likely to be very embarrassed in the morning? Is he the father of a gay son? Is he your father-in-law? Your most important client? Your boss? Your husband’s boss? Your husband? What are the consequences of calling him out? Who gets hurt if you don’t? Are there any gay people in the room?
Are you sure?
There’s no good choice here. The mood is already ruined. Doing nothing would be a statement in itself. It’s up to you, and you’ve got minutes to decide, and your decision matters.
So does context. Are you throwing this party in a fascist, homophobic dictatorship where gay people are persecuted every day? Is this guy surrounded by people who are secretly waiting for permission for a bit of rhetorical queer-bashing? If you confront him, will other people be in danger? Character matters, including your own. How brave are you? How much are you prepared to sacrifice, or ask others to sacrifice, for a quiet life and the pretence of civility? How important is it that this party goes well, and is that still even an option? Lastly – this one’s important, so be honest, if only with yourself.
In one regard, she is right: context matters. While Miss Penny is firmly stuck in the #woke mentality of the early 21st century, for the vast, vast majority of the time about which we have any knowledge of human societies, said “blowhard” would be thought of as informed and sage, and homosexual activity thought of is immoral, sinful, wrong and mentally deranged. And you don’t have to venture far from Western societies to find the same opinions this very day.
This is my first post on Substack, and it’s partly about why I’m on this platform, given that Substack continues to host and profit from the propaganda of, among others, transphobic hatemonger Graham Linehan. The best and most comprehensive breakdown of Linehan’s behavior and why it’s so abhorrent comes from Grace Lavery, also on this platform. I share her conviction that Substack ought to throw this deranged bigot out of their party right now, before anyone else gets hurt.
I said so, in fact, in my initial conversations with Substack. I also spoke with some queer creators and allies who have decided to leave or boycott the platform. I respect that choice. I made a different one, for lots of reasons, but mostly because I think I can do a lot of good work here, with the tools and structure Substack offers, and that that work outweighs what I’d achieve with a public boycott. Before I made that choice, I told my contacts at Substack that they ought to ban Linehan, along with anyone else doing deliberate, wilful, hateful harm to any oppressed minority.
I didn’t actually expect them to change their policy based on my objection. They’re libertarians. They really are libertarians, and I believe that because they know I’m writing this post and told me I had every right to do so, and I’m holding back on details purely out of respect for privacy.
I do not know how much money Miss Penny makes from Substack; given that this was her first article there, probably not much so far. But it is interesting that she exercised her freedom of speech, over Substack’s ‘press,’ if we can call an internet platform that — and I do — to advocate that Graham Linehan not be allowed to use Substack’s press, in an attempt to keep his exercise of freedom of speech as unheard by others as possible. Miss Penny even admitted that Substack knew of the subject on which she was going to right, and stressed that she “had every right to do so.”
I also told them that at some point soon, whether they like the idea or not, they’ll find themselves having to make an active moral choice about whose ideas are worthy. I said that the time is coming when all platforms and publishers will need to take a stand somewhere, and I advised them to start thinking now about how to do so with dignity.
That paragraph of Miss Penny’s is one I take two ways. First, I take it as a not-so-veiled threat, that unless the ‘publishers’ of Substack start refusing to publish ideas she doesn’t like, bad things will happen to them. But secondly, and more importantly, is Miss Penny’s belief that some ideas are not worthy, at least not worthy of debate.
One wonders: if Miss Penny believes that Substack should judge “whose ideas are worthy,” does she not realize that, a hundred years ago, even sixty years ago, her ideas would be rejected as not “worthy” of publication.
What does it mean, then, when a company like Substack chooses to host this sort of malicious hate speech- and to do so in the name of free speech?
This is a post about platforming, and censorship, and moral choices, and why they matter. The question of who does and does not deserve a ‘platform’ is a massive, active issue. So much of our political speech and action is now effectively also publishing– and publishing using platforms that function as public space but are owned by private companies. Every platform is now having to make decisions about what it will and will not tolerate, and those decisions set the political agenda and shape our social world.
It’s significant that most of those platforms are run by precisely the sort of people most likely, for all sorts of reasons, to be free speech fundamentalists. That includes white, straight, cisgender men who are far less likely to be personally harmed by targeted hate speech than they are to be disadvantaged by speech restriction; tech libertarians soaked in a specific vintage of California ideology which considers the freedom of the individual utterly sacrosanct; and Americans. Who are weird about their First Amendment. Sorry, but they really are.
Sadly, Miss Penny is not quite right about that, as Google, Twitter and Facebook have most certainly censored or flagged speech they don’t like, and have done it in a one-sided direction: the mad mullahs of Iran and, now, Afghanistan are allowed Twitter accounts, but the immediate former President of the United States is banned. I have already noted how Twitter allowed a Tweet from Rachel Maddow, one which spread absolutely false and quickly debunked information, claiming that “patients overdosing on ivermectin” were clogging up hospitals in Oklahoma, while putting warning flags on those which stated that masks “don’t work” to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
We have previously noted how Twitter has banned “deadnaming” and “misgendering,” and The New York Times, with its logo “All the News That’s Fit to Print, gave OpEd space to Andrew Marantz to claim that Free Speech is Killing Us, and Chad Malloy to claim that Twitter’s restrictions on ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ actually promote the freedom of speech.
For some people, the principle that all ideas have equal value, and that measured debate will always lead to reasonable compromise, is a shield against the realization that the world is worse than you imagined. Insisting that the liberal exchange of ideas still works protects you from having to face a world where the liberal exchange of ideas doesn’t work.
Not at all. I most certainly do not believe that Miss Penny’s ideas have “equal value” with mine, or even much value at all. Others may think differently, and put their money where their ideas are by subscribing to her Substack. But I am one of those Americans who are “weird about (our) First Amendment,” and strongly believe that the censorship of speech, and the punishment of ideas some people don’t like, is a far, far greater threat to liberty than censoring or ‘deplatforming’ Miss Penny.
Back to that dinner party, with the homophobe who is, by now, getting up in your other guests’ faces and making himself everyone’s problem and yours in particular. It’s not just about free speech. It’s about social context, and harm done. If you ignore him, if you brush him off by saying it’s his right to express himself, you’ve made a statement about whose comfort and safety matters in your space. This wingnut is still shouting about how gay men are perverts who can’t be trusted around children, and your best friend’s kid who just came out is sitting right there. You’re going to have to do something.
“(A)nd harm done.” Miss Penny is telling us that a person who does not approve of homosexuality is actively doing harm to other by expressing his opinions, without ever considering the harm done to individuals and to society in general by censoring those with whom the ‘governors’ disagree. Miss Penny’s example is about disagreeing with homosexuality, but somehow, some way, she has forgotten that without active societal discussion about homosexuality, the change in public attitudes about the subject in many people would never have occurred.
There is one thing about Americans, who are so “weird” about our First Amendment, that Miss Penny, and, sadly enough, far too many of the Special Snowflakes™ in the United States, really don’t understand. Freedom of speech and of the press require a thick skin for those who are willing to speak in public or publish what they think. More, it requires a thick skin of those who would listen or read, because it is always possible that someone will say, or write, something their listeners or readers just don’t like. Miss Penny would subscribe to cowardice, to the shutting down of all ideas which do not fit neatly into her own worldview.
In a world without white supremacy or transphobia or misogyny, we wouldn’t have to put a price on absolute free speech, or consider who might end up paying it. But we don’t live in that world, and if we don’t have the courage to make moral judgements when it matters, we never will.
And in the concluding paragraph of her 2,754 words,
When I read such things, I keep thinking that George Orwell was right about everything but the date.
