Would you insist that an anti-Putin Russian dissident always speak under his real name? Iranian? North Korean? If you can publish your thoughts under your real name, then congratulations. You have the privilege of being able to speak your thoughts without fear of legal, social, or economic persecution. You do not have to fear having your education or career ripped away from you. You do not have to fear the system sycophant "journalists" "reporting" on you because they coyly claim your street address and employer to be "in the public interest." You do not have to fear being "de-platformed" or "de-banked" or "de-homed." You have free speech. But it is not really free speech, it is half-free, it is an illusion of freedom, because it is speech that does not need protection in the first place.
I have seen this "argument" many times before, in not so many words, as a snarky response on social media. And, having read your article, I am even less convinced of it now, and I am even less convinced that it comes from anything but bad faith. "Let me dox you, you coward!" I am no coward to say "No," and not gullible enough to fall for the trick.
In a similar situation to our Founding Fathers', if it may be too dangerous to publish your name, it is probably wise not to. I speak of "Today" from the comforts of my own life... others do not have these comforts, and their "Todays" are different.
I wonder what your circumstances are. Perhaps you have similar comforts as I do, and you do not need to publish under "Anonymous."
Perhaps if you did reply to my Substack post under your real name, a dozen armed men would break into your residence and haul you off. Or your neighbor would challenge you to a duel. I don't know.
It is simply unfortunate people lead lives without the comforts I, and many others, enjoy.
Of course they would not say the punishment is "for" my reply, but for something imaginary like "hate speech" or "creating a hostile work environment." Like in the Soviet Union (and in New York and Florida), they would falsely accuse me of some imagined "hateful threats," maybe dig through taxes or firearm registrations to find an uncrossed T, or just good old "treason."
But, more importantly, assaults on free speech do not need to come from the government. Free speech means the freedom to engage willing listeners, and to at worst, merely be ignored. You don't need to jail or execute every single dissident if everyone is too terrified of economic oppression and manufactured social expulsion to agree with them. The ConnColl campus has now blitzed right past "speech codes" and is now into full-on compelled speech. SVE is now demanding that all faculty cancel all classes and assignments permanently until SVE allows classes to resume, and feigning that faculty who DON'T cancel classes may face retaliation from the Administration, which is blatantly absurd. If they can get the scalp of the President, and they will, they can get the scalp of any student, staff, or faculty member.
How can this POSSIBLY be considered "free speech" just because it's not the government doing it? At what point will non-governmental violations of free speech be recognized as violations of one's fundamental human rights? Call it what is is: terrorism. Using fear to silence and coerce others.
No one believes your claimed position. It is nothing but a smug trap, and I am not falling for it. You do not even believe in it yourself.
In my initial reply, and in my article, I stated that if it is too dangerous to publish a name, then it may be wise not to.
I do believe in my position partly due to the above exception. I never claimed it was absolute, never claimed one has to always publish his name.
Referring to free speech and what is happening on campus is a different subject but related. If one wants to publish something that goes against SVE, risking their scalp being taken, they should definitely consider not using their name. May be too dangerous, but it depends on the author.
I personally would put my name on a piece that criticizes SVE. There is likely no genuine threat from them.
Free speech has not necessarily been curtailed, this is just a volatile time, and it will ease eventually. No one is barring myself, you, or anyone for publishing a piece that criticizes SVE or the student "activists." And again, I see no threat if I publish, so I would not have much to worry about. You may see it differently.
If you do not believe in my position, okay. But it is inappropriate to generalize your disbelief. You know how I feel about authors using pseudonyms. Take that how you will.
Love this and hmmm… wonder if it was written specifically for someone ….. maybe the letter …..
Wow, I wonder who this article was written about?🧐
Would you insist that an anti-Putin Russian dissident always speak under his real name? Iranian? North Korean? If you can publish your thoughts under your real name, then congratulations. You have the privilege of being able to speak your thoughts without fear of legal, social, or economic persecution. You do not have to fear having your education or career ripped away from you. You do not have to fear the system sycophant "journalists" "reporting" on you because they coyly claim your street address and employer to be "in the public interest." You do not have to fear being "de-platformed" or "de-banked" or "de-homed." You have free speech. But it is not really free speech, it is half-free, it is an illusion of freedom, because it is speech that does not need protection in the first place.
I have seen this "argument" many times before, in not so many words, as a snarky response on social media. And, having read your article, I am even less convinced of it now, and I am even less convinced that it comes from anything but bad faith. "Let me dox you, you coward!" I am no coward to say "No," and not gullible enough to fall for the trick.
In a similar situation to our Founding Fathers', if it may be too dangerous to publish your name, it is probably wise not to. I speak of "Today" from the comforts of my own life... others do not have these comforts, and their "Todays" are different.
I wonder what your circumstances are. Perhaps you have similar comforts as I do, and you do not need to publish under "Anonymous."
Perhaps if you did reply to my Substack post under your real name, a dozen armed men would break into your residence and haul you off. Or your neighbor would challenge you to a duel. I don't know.
It is simply unfortunate people lead lives without the comforts I, and many others, enjoy.
Simply unfortunate.
Of course they would not say the punishment is "for" my reply, but for something imaginary like "hate speech" or "creating a hostile work environment." Like in the Soviet Union (and in New York and Florida), they would falsely accuse me of some imagined "hateful threats," maybe dig through taxes or firearm registrations to find an uncrossed T, or just good old "treason."
But, more importantly, assaults on free speech do not need to come from the government. Free speech means the freedom to engage willing listeners, and to at worst, merely be ignored. You don't need to jail or execute every single dissident if everyone is too terrified of economic oppression and manufactured social expulsion to agree with them. The ConnColl campus has now blitzed right past "speech codes" and is now into full-on compelled speech. SVE is now demanding that all faculty cancel all classes and assignments permanently until SVE allows classes to resume, and feigning that faculty who DON'T cancel classes may face retaliation from the Administration, which is blatantly absurd. If they can get the scalp of the President, and they will, they can get the scalp of any student, staff, or faculty member.
How can this POSSIBLY be considered "free speech" just because it's not the government doing it? At what point will non-governmental violations of free speech be recognized as violations of one's fundamental human rights? Call it what is is: terrorism. Using fear to silence and coerce others.
No one believes your claimed position. It is nothing but a smug trap, and I am not falling for it. You do not even believe in it yourself.
In my initial reply, and in my article, I stated that if it is too dangerous to publish a name, then it may be wise not to.
I do believe in my position partly due to the above exception. I never claimed it was absolute, never claimed one has to always publish his name.
Referring to free speech and what is happening on campus is a different subject but related. If one wants to publish something that goes against SVE, risking their scalp being taken, they should definitely consider not using their name. May be too dangerous, but it depends on the author.
I personally would put my name on a piece that criticizes SVE. There is likely no genuine threat from them.
Free speech has not necessarily been curtailed, this is just a volatile time, and it will ease eventually. No one is barring myself, you, or anyone for publishing a piece that criticizes SVE or the student "activists." And again, I see no threat if I publish, so I would not have much to worry about. You may see it differently.
If you do not believe in my position, okay. But it is inappropriate to generalize your disbelief. You know how I feel about authors using pseudonyms. Take that how you will.