You Can Be Pro-Free Speech and Anti-Hate Speech at the Same Time

"Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes."

Welcome! Today is a different kind of post here on *Raising Gen Alpha* that speaks to a controversy surrounding the Substack community right now. However, the debate over free speech versus hate speech is one that impacts our Generation Alpha kids and since anti-racism and queer allyship are core beliefs of this publication, I hope you will still read this.

I fell in love with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution the first time I learned about it sometime in middle school. It states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Back then, I didn’t know that I would become a career journalist or that freedom of speech and freedom of the press would become inherently important to my work. All I knew was that, as someone who came from Russia and Cuba, free speech seemed like a super great thing.

Substackers Against Nazis vs Don’t Moderate This Platform

In the past few days, you may have seen an open letter to the Substack founders being published in many newsletters on this platform. It’s titled “Substackers Against Nazis” and calls for Chris, Hamish & Jairaj to answer the question: Why are you platforming and monetizing Nazis? 

“From our perspective as Substack publishers, it is unfathomable that someone with a swastika avatar, who writes about ‘The Jewish question,’ or who promotes Great Replacement Theory, could be given the tools to succeed on your platform. And yet you’ve been unable to adequately explain your position.” 

So far, the letter has been signed by hundreds of Substack authors.

However, there is simultaneously an alternative viewpoint going around that focuses on the issue of free speech and emphasizes that “Substack shouldn’t decide what we read.” This post (also signed by many writers) goes on to explain why moderation has failed on many social media platforms and compares the Substack platform to a public park “where all of us are safe to flourish.”

It also adds that the “white-supremacist, neo-Confederate, and explicitly Nazi newsletters” content is difficult to find unless you go looking for it.

“Let the writers and readers moderate, not the social media platforms. And don’t have one big town square we all have to be exposed to, have a bunch of smaller ones that we can choose to be part of.”

I admit that the argument against moderation is a decent one. But there is one thing that people seem to be forgetting:

YOU CAN BE PRO-FREE SPEECH AND ANTI-HATE SPEECH AT THE SAME TIME

Here’s how that works.

Is Neo-Nazism Based in Free Speech or Hate Speech?

The issue at hand in the Substack writers against Nazis letter isn’t a Nazi’s right to say what they say but rather whether Substack should give Nazis a platform and a way to monetize their antisemitic content.

In their own Content Guidelines, after the sections on “Legal” and “In General,” Substack as a platform takes a stance against hate speech. Here’s what it says:

Hate 

Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition.

(A BIG thank you to

Jackie Dana

for pointing this out in the comments section of their post on the topic.)

Yes, the U.S. Constitution says that we should all have the freedom of speech but the U.S. Department of Justice is clear about penalizing hate crimes.

The Department of Justice enforces federal hate crimes laws that cover certain crimes committed on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability.

So for Nazi rhetoric on Substack, which is it? Is it free speech or is it a hate crime?

First, let’s define hate speech as best we can. Personally, I think the United Nations’s got it down:

Hate speech is “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.”

Then we need to ask: Is hate speech illegal?

Technically, no—but although “freedom of opinion and expression are, indeed, cornerstones of human rights and pillars of free and democratic societies,” the UN also clarifies that there is a difference between freedom of expression and “incitement” to discriminate, be hostile toward, and enact violence upon the protected classes mentioned above.

Now the issue essentially comes down to the question of: Do we think Nazis are using free speech or hate speech on Substack?

For those who may have forgotten the basis of Nazi ideology, let me remind you via an excellent summary of Nazism from the Encyclopædia Britannica:

Nazism’s ideology was shaped by Hitler’s beliefs in German racial superiority and the dangers of communism. It rejected liberalism, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights, stressing instead the subordination of the individual to the state and the necessity of strict obedience to leaders. It emphasized the inequality of individuals and “races” and the right of the strong to rule the weak.

Politically, Nazism favoured rearmament, reunification of the German areas of Europe, expansion into non-German areas, and the purging of “undesirables,” especially the Jewish people.

Do you see what it says at the end there? That whole “purging” of “undesirables,” especially the Jewish people? That’s what being a Nazi means. It means that is what you want to happen. (By the way, gay people were also sent to concentration camps.)

And so here’s how we can determine whether Nazis on the Substack platform are exercising free speech or using hate speech and therefore violating Substack’s own content guidelines: Are modern-day Nazis encouraging and inciting violence or threatening physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition?

Considering that the whole philosophy of Nazism is to enact genocide against those that Hitler and company deemed “undesirable” by way of terrorism, I would say that YES, Nazi speech is inherently hate speech.

And if you’re going to tell me that writing about their hate for the Jewish people isn’t the same as enacting violence against the Jewish people, I think

Jackie Dana

once again said it best:

“In this case, I take issue with any Substack that riles up its readers against Jews, gay people, trans people, immigrants or people of color - or any other group - and which can and does lead directly to people committing acts of violence against those groups. You don't have to be the one to call for violence directly if you encourage people to hate another group of people. This is a known and effective technique and it cannot be swept away by saying, ‘but the author didn't actually call for violence - they only expressed their beliefs that another group was inferior.’ That is why many people are calling it what it is - Nazism and fascism.”

And before you tell me that you still think that Nazi rhetoric is protected by free speech, I ask you this: Since hate crimes are illegal, is speech based on a philosophy of using terrorism to murder those that are deemed unworthy of life inherently hateful and meant to incite violence? (Hint: The answer is yes.)

If you’re okay with tolerating people who want to kill all Jews, and probably all gay people too, profiting on Substack (the actual issue raised by Substackers Against Nazis), then I’m afraid we’re never going to get along.

Now, I leave you with this:

TL;DR: Freedom of speech is important but Nazi philosophy aims to exterminate “undesirables,” and is therefore hate speech meant to incite violence. This violates Substack’s Content Guidelines—and Substackers Against Nazis demand for this platform’s founders to explain themselves.

Remember: You can be pro-free speech in almost all cases except when that speech is used to enact violence against a group based on their identity. Then, that’s called hate speech.

---

Talk soon,
Irina (she/her) - raising a March 2020 gen alpha kid