0:00

Hi, it's Brendan here. Before we

0:02

get into this week's episode, I

0:04

just wanted to let you know

0:06

about our next online event, the

0:08

last one of the year. The

0:10

wonderful James Dreyfuss, star of Gimmy

0:12

Gimmy and Absolutely Fabulous, will be

0:14

joining me for an extra festive

0:17

live recording of the Brendan O'Neill

0:19

Show. You can join us on

0:21

Zoom on Wednesday the 18th of

0:23

December at 7 p.m. UK Time.

0:25

We'll be discussing some of this

0:27

past year's madest moments in the

0:29

cultural war, what derangements might be

0:32

in store in 2025, and James

0:34

will be answering your questions too.

0:36

The event is free and exclusive

0:38

for Spike Supporters. So if you'll

0:40

remember, then register for your ticket

0:42

now via the Supporters Hub or

0:44

by going to Spike hyphen.com.com/events. you're

0:47

not a supporter, then why not

0:49

sign up today? For just 5

0:51

pounds or more per month, you

0:53

can get access to this event

0:55

plus all the exciting events we

0:57

have planned in the new year

0:59

alongside loads of other perks too.

1:02

Sign up today at spiked hyphen

1:04

online.com/support. We even have a special

1:06

Christmas offer for you. If you

1:08

donate 50 pounds or more per

1:10

year, you'll get a year's membership

1:12

of Spike supporters and we'll throw

1:14

in a spiked mug for UK

1:17

addresses only. So if you want

1:19

the mug, the membership and a

1:21

place at this event, then go

1:23

to spiked hyphen.com.com/donate. I can't wait

1:25

to see you all on Wednesday

1:27

the 18th of December at 7

1:29

p.m. If

1:34

you take a look at Great Britain, France,

1:36

Germany, Canada, you can see what happens when

1:39

you allow for censorship to take hold. It

1:41

becomes this insatiable appetite. If you're censoring this

1:43

group, well how about that group? How about

1:45

if you're saying this is a grotesque or

1:47

offensive concept? How about this concept that I

1:49

find offensive? And so politicians pile on in

1:52

the scope of the censorship grows. been

1:54

the lesson of history.

1:56

One of the things

1:58

the book raises is is

2:00

single censorship system in

2:02

history that has worked,

2:05

that has actually stopped

2:07

a single idea or

2:09

a single movement. It

2:11

has a perfect failure

2:13

failure record. Hello, welcome back to

2:16

the Brendan welcome back to me,

2:18

O O'Neill, me, my Brendan O 'Neill, and

2:20

my special guest this week, Turley. Jonathan,

2:22

welcome to the show. It's great great to be

2:24

with you, Brendan, thank you. you. It's

2:26

wonderful to have you on,

2:29

and let's talk about your new

2:31

book, Indispensable Right, Free Speech an an

2:33

Age of Rage. so much in so

2:35

much in this book. Everyone who,

2:37

of free speech or concerned fan fate speech

2:39

or concerned about the fate of freedom

2:41

of speech should definitely read this book

2:43

There's lots in there about the history

2:45

of this idea the enactment of this idea

2:47

where it might go in the future.

2:49

There is so much to chew over

2:51

over. I guess I want to kick

2:54

off by asking you about the title

2:56

itself and especially about that especially about that of

2:58

rage. So when I first saw the

3:00

title of the book, I thought oh,

3:02

this will be about I thought, oh, this new

3:04

era of era of Twitter fighting and

3:06

polarization and algorithms and constant arguing on

3:08

the the I thought that

3:10

would be the would of rage

3:12

you were referring to, but

3:14

to. But you see it as an era

3:16

that era a bit longer than that and than that,

3:18

of rage has a bit more. a bit

3:20

more. history to it. So you kick off by

3:22

explaining to us what you mean? you mean

3:25

by an age of rage and why he thought it

3:27

was important to locate to locate freedom

3:29

of speech within that particular idea.

3:31

idea? I'd be happy to do that,

3:33

Brendan. I think it's actually a

3:35

good place to begin, because this

3:37

isn't our first age of rage.

3:39

That's why our subtitle is of rage,

3:41

Rage rather than Age of Rage.

3:43

The book is an effort to

3:45

understand what free speech

3:47

is from the personalities

3:50

and periods that we have

3:52

lived through going back

3:54

to Great Britain, going back

3:56

before the before the revolution. And

3:59

history is... by

4:01

periods of rage where you

4:03

have rage rhetoric. This country

4:05

was formed, was born in

4:07

an age of rage. That's

4:09

what the Boston Tea Party

4:11

was. It was an act

4:13

of rage. And what the

4:15

book tries to explore is

4:17

how rage rhetoric, as I

4:19

refer to it, becomes state

4:21

rage, that governments use that

4:24

rhetoric. to crack down on

4:26

citizens, to impose censorship, blacklisting,

4:28

to arrest thousands, as was

4:30

done in the United States.

4:32

The fact is, the United

4:34

States is not as good

4:36

as our advertising. I mean,

4:38

we have really gone through

4:40

terrible periods where we have

4:42

arrested thousands, communists, communists, unionists.

4:44

All of this was an

4:47

act, in my view, of

4:49

state rage. And one thing

4:51

the book tries to explore,

4:53

and this is why it

4:55

took me 30 years to

4:57

write this book, is that

4:59

we're still struggling with what

5:01

free speech is. We're still

5:03

on this slippery slope in

5:05

trying to understand what this

5:07

concept is. All of us

5:10

seem to agree it's indispensable.

5:13

Yeah, I really want to get

5:15

to that point because I think

5:17

that that is such an important

5:19

point and I think your book

5:22

does an excellent job of explaining

5:24

why freedom of speech is more

5:26

than just a useful tool. It's

5:28

something far more profound than that.

5:30

So I want to kind of

5:33

get us towards that view. To

5:35

begin with, let's talk a little

5:37

bit about the history of it.

5:39

So the history of this idea,

5:41

the history of the notion of

5:44

freedom of speech. Your book has

5:46

a lot of history in there.

5:48

You talk a lot about the

5:50

US, of course, and the First

5:52

Amendment. You also talk about the

5:55

British context, which is something that

5:57

I'm interested in, and my listeners

5:59

will be interested in too. And

6:01

what I found interesting is that

6:04

you quote from old English documents

6:06

that were essentially clampdowns on freedom

6:08

of speech. you quote from the

6:10

statute of Westminster in 1275, and

6:12

it's such an interesting line where

6:15

it says, from henceforth, none be

6:17

so hardy as to tell or

6:19

publish any false news or tales

6:21

that might soak discord between the

6:23

king and his people. And I

6:26

read that, and I thought, well,

6:28

there you go. It's the misinformation

6:30

idea, but 800 years ago. And

6:32

I wanted to ask you how.

6:34

How common are the themes of

6:37

censorship? Because you look back to

6:39

that era prior to the English

6:41

Revolution, prior to the English Civil

6:43

War, prior to our Bill of

6:45

Rights when we did develop the

6:48

idea of freedom of speech. When

6:50

there were these clampdowns that were

6:52

often justified on the basis of

6:54

stopping misinformation or preventing seditious thinking.

6:56

And you do see those ideas

6:59

coming back today, don't you, in

7:01

the new forms of censorship that

7:03

we face in the 21st century.

7:05

You certainly do, and to understand

7:07

free speech, I go all the

7:10

way back to agent Greece, but

7:12

it's really our relationship with Great

7:14

Britain that is so interesting and

7:16

profound, because in many respects, the

7:18

most revolutionary act of the American

7:21

Revolution was how we approached free

7:23

speech. It was the most significant

7:25

break from Great Britain. Free speech

7:27

had not really taken deep roots

7:30

in Great Britain as was reflected

7:32

by the statute of Westminster in

7:34

1275. The interesting aspect about that

7:36

history is that many people are

7:38

familiar with the Star Chamber. What

7:41

they're not familiar with is that

7:43

the Star Chamber was actually a

7:45

speech prosecution forum, that it was

7:47

created because English courts really began

7:49

to question whether they could convict

7:52

people of treason for telling body

7:54

jokes about the Queen or telling

7:56

tales against the Crown. And the

7:58

response of the Crown was to

8:00

create a new court. a new

8:03

crime, and the crime was sedition.

8:05

So it was sort of like

8:07

treason light, and it was an

8:09

effort to create a new court,

8:11

a new crime where they could

8:14

prosecute people for saying things that

8:16

were obnoxious to the crown. And

8:18

so that history really informed the

8:20

view of the framers when they

8:22

eventually embodied our concept of free

8:25

speech in the First Amendment. And

8:27

the interesting thing about that is

8:29

that it was incredibly revolutionary then.

8:31

It's revolutionary now. I mean, one

8:33

of my colleagues is leading an

8:36

effort in the United States to

8:38

amend the First Amendment. She believes

8:40

that the First Amendment is quote,

8:42

aggressively individualistic, and she has language

8:45

to to balance free speech against

8:47

equity. Well, that's what actually is

8:49

happening in Europe. I mean, free

8:51

speech is in a free fall

8:53

in Europe, including in Great Britain.

8:56

And what we have to sort

8:58

of think about is which path

9:00

we want to go down. And

9:02

that wave has reached our shores

9:04

in the United States. We have

9:07

had an anti-free speech movement in

9:09

Europe that's been building for years.

9:11

But we also have our homegrown

9:13

anti-free speech movement that came from

9:15

higher education and it's now metastasized

9:18

among the media and government and

9:20

corporations. And we're not going to

9:22

be able to resolve this conflict

9:24

unless we can resolve what free

9:26

speech is, why it is it's

9:29

indispensable and what you need to

9:31

defend it. Absolutely.

9:33

I wanted to press you a

9:35

bit more on the relationship between

9:37

Britain and America when it comes

9:40

to the development of the modern

9:42

notion of freedom of speech and

9:44

how we understand it today. And

9:46

you talked just there about how

9:48

one of the things that the

9:51

early Americans wanted to do was

9:53

to distance themselves from some of

9:55

the censorship that ruled in Britain

9:57

in the right up to the

9:59

1600s and after that too. And

10:02

you make the point in your

10:04

book that the Bill of Rights

10:06

that we got here in 1689

10:08

tended to protect the freedom to

10:10

speak in Parliament, but not so

10:13

much the freedom to speak in

10:15

public. So there was a kind

10:17

of a disparity there. And you

10:19

also tell the story of one

10:21

of my heroes, John Lilburn. also

10:24

known as free-born John who was

10:26

a leveler during the English Civil

10:28

War and he was a smuggler

10:30

of seditious pamphlets into Britain for

10:32

which he was publicly flogged and

10:35

punished and it's a story that's

10:37

fairly well known in the annals

10:39

of the history of freedom. So

10:41

was it the case that the

10:44

founders of modern America, the early

10:46

revolutionaries, they looked at that history

10:48

and they said, well, there are

10:50

things we can learn from the

10:52

mother country, but there are definitely

10:55

things we want to do differently?

10:57

Is that how they conceived of

10:59

creating this new country that would

11:01

be founded very much, very explicitly

11:03

in the ideals of freedom? Yes,

11:06

I think that's quite accurate. When

11:08

you look at the American Revolution,

11:10

we took much from Great Britain.

11:12

I mean, the framers had great

11:14

attachment and affection for many aspects

11:17

of Great Britain, including English laws.

11:19

I mean, the English common law,

11:21

of course, became the foundation. of

11:23

American common law. And we have

11:25

always had this close affiliation to

11:28

the present day as two common

11:30

law nations committed to many of

11:32

the same values. It was on

11:34

free speech that the framers saw

11:36

the greatest disconnect. The framers were

11:39

heavily influenced by philosophers like John

11:41

Locke. They believed that there were

11:43

certain rights that were natural rights

11:45

that belonged to us as human

11:47

beings, that were not the creation

11:50

or the gift of the government

11:52

rather the government was supposed to

11:54

protect those natural rights that were

11:56

gifts from God that were part

11:59

of being full And

12:01

while the framers did not subscribe

12:03

to the British view of free

12:06

speech, they did take a great

12:08

deal from many of the writers

12:10

in Great Britain. And as you

12:13

noted, you know, Freeborn John, you

12:15

know, John Lilborn is a great

12:17

example of that. You know, George

12:20

Bernard Shaw said that unreasonable people,

12:22

are people who expect the world

12:25

to conform to them? And he

12:27

then added, that's why all history

12:29

is made by unreasonable people. And

12:32

Freeborn John was the ultimate unreasonable

12:34

person. You know, he defied the

12:36

star chamber. He was pulled before

12:39

the star chamber. Imagine that. I

12:41

mean, he's pulling this fearsome chamber

12:43

where you have virtually no rights.

12:46

The laws are cut and dry

12:48

against you. And he defied them.

12:51

Ultimately, he was tied to the

12:53

back of an ox cart and

12:55

flogged from fleet prison to palace

12:58

yard. He was dragged that entire

13:00

distance. He was pilloried in palace

13:02

yard. And even in that state,

13:05

he continued to protest. He continued

13:07

to yell and lecture. the crowd

13:10

about free speech and the abuses

13:12

of the crown. So he was

13:14

gagged. And even when he was

13:17

gagged, he continued to stamp his

13:19

feet in protest to the point

13:21

that they just gave up. They

13:24

just took him to his cell

13:26

because there was nothing that could

13:28

break free born John. The obviously

13:31

have a great deal of admiration

13:33

for some of these personalities. particularly

13:36

Lilborn, because it shows who our

13:38

true heroes are. You know, part

13:40

of the thing this book does

13:43

is it tries to identify not

13:45

just who our heroes are, but

13:47

who are sort of our fallen

13:50

angels. You know, I would rather

13:52

my children learn about Freeborn John

13:55

than John Adams. I mean, John

13:57

Adams was an incredible hypocrite. He

13:59

became he despised

14:01

in the British. And the

14:04

book sort of suggests that

14:06

our true heroes are people

14:08

like free born John that

14:11

really put themselves their lives

14:13

in the path of state

14:15

rage. In relation

14:18

to that, just looking at the

14:20

American context and the development of

14:22

the idea of freedom of speech

14:24

there, one thing that I found

14:27

quite surprising in your book is

14:29

that, and some of the reviewers

14:31

have commented on this, is that

14:33

you talk about the First Amendment

14:36

in great detail, of course, and

14:38

the First Amendment, as listeners will

14:40

know, is the much admired commitment

14:42

in the US to forbidding the

14:45

state from interfering with freedom of

14:47

speech, freedom of the press, and

14:49

the freedom to worship. And you've

14:52

mentioned earlier on in this conversation

14:54

that that has been the United

14:56

States has not always lived up

14:58

to that ideal to that First

15:01

Amendment through its arrest of communists

15:03

and feminists and other supposed social

15:05

and political deviance over the decades.

15:07

But you talk in the book

15:10

about how the very ideals of

15:12

the First Amendment were undermined by

15:14

governments in the US quite early

15:16

on, quite soon after these amendments

15:19

were adopted. And in the book

15:21

you talk about the sedition addiction

15:23

of governments, where they are addicted

15:25

to this idea that they must

15:28

hunt out for seditious thinking and

15:30

seditious ideas. And you talk about

15:32

the passing of the sedition act

15:35

in the US. and the impact

15:37

that that had on this new

15:39

freedom of freedom of speech. Can

15:41

you talk a little bit about

15:44

why do you think freedom of

15:46

speech was caveatted or checked or

15:48

balanced so soon in the American

15:50

experience? Well, that's one of the

15:53

great tragedies of the American Revolution.

15:55

We have this moment of clarity

15:57

at the revolution. You know, if

15:59

you read the Declaration of Independence,

16:02

it doesn't mention democracy once. It

16:04

talks about liberty. it talks about

16:06

liberty as a natural right. It

16:08

has a very locking and feel

16:11

to it. And when it came

16:13

to free speech, that was really

16:15

captured in the First Amendment. And

16:18

we had that moment of clarity

16:20

that was then lost within a

16:22

few years as federalist judges defaulted

16:24

to the more Blackstonian British view

16:27

of free speech. They adopted what

16:29

I call a functionless view, that

16:31

the idea is that you protect

16:33

free speech to the degree that

16:36

it perfects or advances democracy, that

16:38

it's protected because it's needed for

16:40

democracy. And it certainly is needed

16:42

for democracy, but it's much more

16:45

than that. And what the book

16:47

suggests is that it's a human

16:49

right. It's necessary to make us

16:51

fully human. But what happened in

16:54

those years is that we regressed

16:56

back to the Blackstonian view. And

16:58

that opened up the door for

17:01

the Adams administration to use the

17:03

Alienist Edition acts to prosecute his

17:05

political opponents. And what was most

17:07

notable during this period I talk

17:10

about is that even Jefferson himself,

17:12

who pardoned many of those convicted,

17:14

or all of them actually convicted,

17:16

under the Adams administration, he also

17:19

would prosecute people for their political

17:21

views. Not to the same extent.

17:23

But he also failed that standard.

17:25

The person who didn't in my

17:28

view is James Madison, and he

17:30

wrote a famous report known as

17:32

the Report of 1800. And I

17:34

was really taken how in that

17:37

report he refers to sedition as

17:39

a monster. And I really, that

17:41

captivated me because I think it

17:44

really does capture what sedition is,

17:46

what speech prosecutions are. They are

17:48

this monster that lives within us,

17:50

that we release upon each other

17:53

when we're very afraid or we're

17:55

very angry. And this monster comes

17:57

out in our ages of rage.

17:59

And Madison really sort of captured

18:02

that and said that we have

18:04

to break this pattern, to break

18:06

what I call the sedition addiction.

18:08

We've never done that. You know,

18:11

it was interesting that one of

18:13

the first things the Department of

18:15

Justice did after January 6 is

18:17

that they pursued, you know, a

18:20

handful of people, not just for

18:22

the riot, but charged them with

18:24

seditious conspiracy. And it's still there.

18:27

We still want to create crimes

18:29

that are speech-based, as opposed to

18:31

conduct-based, which is what the book

18:33

tries to suggest, is that we

18:36

have to move away from prosecution

18:38

of speech and focus on conduct.

18:41

Yes, and I want to ask

18:43

you about the January 6th issue

18:45

in a moment, but I think

18:48

first I want to just touch

18:50

on some of the ways in

18:52

which, because I feel that we

18:55

live in an incredibly sensorious culture

18:57

in 2024, sadly, and you touch

18:59

on a lot of this in

19:01

your book and in your writings

19:04

over the years as well, in

19:06

fact. And I'm very interested and

19:08

even more so since reading your

19:11

book about the way in which

19:13

old notions of problematic speech are

19:15

continually rehabilitated, sometimes in slightly different

19:17

language, sometimes in more politically correct

19:20

forms, but all those ideas that

19:22

were there in England and America

19:24

hundreds of years ago about the

19:27

danger of seditious speech, the danger

19:29

of libelling, important people and monarchs

19:31

and peers. the danger of disinformation

19:33

or false news or false rumors,

19:36

all of those ideas seem to

19:38

be coming back to life in

19:40

the modern era in a very

19:43

powerful way. And I wanted to

19:45

touch on one of them in

19:47

particular, which is this idea of

19:49

misinformation or disinformation. I know there's

19:52

a slight difference between those things.

19:54

You've been called out the New

19:56

York Times and other so-called outlets

19:59

are very concerned with misinformation and

20:01

with their supposed right to tell

20:03

us what is true and what

20:05

is false. Talk to us a

20:08

little bit about why you see

20:10

the idea of misinformation as potentially

20:12

problematic in the sense that I

20:15

guess Crusades against misinformation, especially if

20:17

they come from the state, can

20:19

often have the impact of undermining

20:21

freedom of thought and freedom of

20:24

speech. Well, I actually thought that

20:26

the New York Times review was

20:28

rather humorous. First of all, there

20:31

was no evidence that the author

20:33

actually read the book if you

20:35

read the, if you read the,

20:37

it was a curious review because

20:40

he said, you know, the problem

20:42

with his book is that he,

20:44

he really makes this huge case

20:47

for free speech and doesn't, and

20:49

doesn't embrace censorship. And I was

20:51

like, well, well, yeah, that, that's

20:53

sort of the point of the

20:56

point of the book, because the

20:58

book actually criticized as the New

21:00

York Times more than any other

21:03

paper in the United States, which

21:05

they also didn't didn't mentioned, But

21:07

the Biden administration has said there

21:09

are three categories for censorship. You've

21:12

got disinformation, misinformation, and malformation. Of

21:14

the three, malinformation is my favorite

21:16

because it's defined by the Biden

21:19

administration is the use of true

21:21

facts in a misleading way. It's

21:23

hard to imagine how the government

21:25

might abuse that standard, right? I

21:28

mean, every government has argued in

21:30

history that people are using facts

21:32

in misleading ways, but here you

21:35

have people saying, well, that also

21:37

has to be censored or moderated.

21:39

And the whole idea is that

21:41

we have to protect people from

21:44

dangerous thoughts. We've got to sort

21:46

of put them in this framing

21:48

so that they can have good

21:51

thoughts. And that's been the sort

21:53

of clearance cry, or the sirens

21:55

cry for, for, for, for centuries.

21:57

And the question is really, when

22:00

we face these anti-free speech advocates,

22:02

how we present our because they

22:04

they tend to want us to

22:07

fight on their ground first of

22:09

all they tend to to make

22:11

arguments that in my view Are

22:14

really disingenuous, you know, they'll bring

22:16

up things like child pornography This

22:18

this came up in a sort

22:20

of a debate I had with

22:23

one the top Facebook people and

22:25

I mentioned the child pornography is

22:27

against the law. It's an act.

22:30

It's a criminal act No one's

22:32

talking about child pornography here But

22:34

what they'll do is they will

22:36

take the most extreme forms of

22:39

conduct, but then justify this ambiguous,

22:41

sweeping, and fluid standard of disinformation,

22:43

misinformation, and malformation. And we really

22:46

see how that has taken hold

22:48

in Europe. I'm an anglophile. I

22:50

love Great Britain. I spend much

22:52

of my research on British sources.

22:55

And it breaks my heart to

22:57

see what has happened to free

22:59

speech in Great Britain. I find

23:02

it just unimaginable how it has

23:04

been allowed to go this far.

23:06

But if you take a look

23:08

at Great Britain, France, Germany, Canada,

23:11

You can see what happens when

23:13

you allow for censorship to take

23:15

hold. It becomes this insatiable appetite.

23:18

If you're censoring this group, well,

23:20

how about that group? How about

23:22

if you're saying this is a

23:24

grotesque or offensive concept? How about

23:27

this concept that I find offensive?

23:29

And so politicians pile on and

23:31

the scope of the censorship grows.

23:34

That's always been the lesson of

23:36

history. One of the things the

23:38

book raises is name a single

23:40

censorship system in history that has

23:43

worked, that has actually stopped a

23:45

single idea or a single movement.

23:47

It has a perfect failure record.

23:50

And this book tries to explain

23:52

why. And it's because in my

23:54

view, free speech is a human

23:56

right. It is something that we're

23:59

hardwired for. I even talk about

24:01

medical studies. that if you don't

24:03

express yourself you could physically change

24:06

parts of your brain shrink that

24:08

we are so designed for free

24:10

speech that we can have a

24:12

physical response to the failure or

24:15

the inability to use it and

24:17

hence the reason censorship systems have

24:19

always failed because free speech is

24:22

like water it finds its way

24:24

out because we needed to be

24:26

human and so what it does

24:28

the success is not in stopping

24:31

any particular idea. You know, if

24:33

you take a look at Germany,

24:35

they have been doing robust censorship,

24:38

particularly since World War II, even

24:40

before then, but since World War

24:42

II. And I spoke to a

24:44

group of academics, including many German

24:47

academics and judges, and I asked

24:49

them, how is it working for

24:51

you? You've been at this longer

24:54

than anyone. And yet, you have

24:56

robust parades. You've got these massive

24:58

parades and demonstrations of thousands of

25:00

skinheads and Nazis in your street,

25:03

right? But you have a poll

25:05

recently that showed only 17% of

25:07

Germans feel comfortable speaking their values

25:10

in public. So you've succeeded in

25:12

silencing the wrong group, right? The

25:14

neo-Nazis are doing great, right? But

25:16

the rest of your population is

25:19

afraid to speak. But of course,

25:21

for government officials, that's not necessarily

25:23

a bad thing, because censorship is

25:26

about power, right? The fact that

25:28

people have this chilling effect, that

25:30

they have the self-censorship, is precisely

25:32

what officials want. that's

25:35

that's very well put and in

25:37

relation to the self-censorship question I

25:39

wanted to ask you because another

25:42

idea alongside misinformation and malformation and

25:44

those old notions that have been

25:46

repackaged in new ways the other

25:48

idea that we've seen grow enormously

25:51

over the past few decades is

25:53

the idea of speech as harmful

25:55

harmful to the individual it might

25:57

shatter your self-esteem if you hear

26:01

idea. You might feel erased, you

26:03

might feel your identity being erased

26:05

if someone calls it into question.

26:07

There is this idea that speech

26:10

is very very harmful to the

26:12

individual and to me it kind

26:14

of echoes older ideas about speech

26:17

as a kind of moral pollutant,

26:19

you know, the pollution of men's

26:21

souls with heresy or rumours or

26:24

whatever else it might be. This

26:26

notion that speech is something that

26:28

can get into the soul of

26:30

a person and blow it up

26:33

and therefore speech has to be

26:35

controlled. And we see this idea

26:37

particularly on campuses. We've seen it

26:40

in campuses in the US and

26:42

in the UK where students have

26:44

devoted themselves in recent times to

26:46

censoring all sorts of things that

26:49

they consider to be harmful to

26:51

their mental well-being or their self-esteem.

26:53

I've found myself being no platformed

26:56

from Oxford University in the UK

26:58

and lots of other people too

27:00

have been expelled from campuses because

27:03

their ideas are seen as harmful.

27:05

How do you counter that idea

27:07

that speech is harmful without at

27:09

the same time giving in, without

27:12

selling out the idea that speech

27:14

is actually powerful, it is a

27:16

very powerful tool, but the idea

27:19

that it's harmful and will destroy

27:21

the individual is a pretty dangerous

27:23

one isn't it? It is, and

27:25

of course we have the same

27:28

phenomenon that you describe read in

27:30

the United States. In the indispensable

27:32

right, I have a whole chapter

27:35

on higher education, where of course

27:37

we have canceled campaigns and deplatforming

27:39

here. And we're also raising a

27:42

generation of speech phobics, you know,

27:44

kids who have been told since

27:46

they were in grade school that

27:48

speech is harmful, that you should

27:51

not be triggered by opposing views.

27:53

And you know, when I went

27:55

to Chicago, I lived in a

27:58

vegetarian cooperative called the Dorchester Cooperative.

28:00

It's where the book The Jungle

28:02

was written. And downstairs. had Trotskyites

28:04

that would meet in the basement,

28:07

and upstairs we had militant vegans.

28:09

Next door we had socialists, and

28:11

on the other side we had

28:14

libertarians. I thought they were all

28:16

crazy at the time, but I

28:18

couldn't get enough of them. I

28:21

was fascinated by them. I loved

28:23

every minute of it. It was

28:25

a true awakening for me in

28:27

college. I was able to talk

28:30

to people that saw what I

28:32

was seeing but saw something so

28:34

very different, and I wanted to

28:37

know why. And it was a

28:39

wonderful education. Kids don't have that

28:41

today. We have. largely purged faculties

28:43

of conservatives, libertarians, dissenters. It has

28:46

become an academic echo chamber. That's

28:48

one of the reasons I adored

28:50

the late University of Chicago president

28:53

Robert Zimmer. You know, he sent

28:55

out a letter that congratulated students

28:57

for getting accepted at University Chicago.

29:00

And you know, Chicago takes less

29:02

than 5% of applicants. So these

29:04

kids had really worked really hard

29:06

and he congratulated them. And he

29:09

then said, you know, what, I

29:11

want to make sure you understand

29:13

that many of you are concerned

29:16

that you will come here and

29:18

there'll be no safe spaces and

29:20

that you're going to find views

29:22

that are threatening to you. And

29:25

I just want to assure you

29:27

that at the University of Chicago,

29:29

there are no safe spaces. He

29:32

said, you know, if you want

29:34

safe spaces, you need to go

29:36

somewhere else because we won't protect

29:39

you from ideas here. And it

29:41

became known to the Chicago letter,

29:43

and it has been adopted by

29:45

some universities. It was a brilliant

29:48

letter, but it was an island

29:50

in this raging sea of censorship

29:52

and orthodoxy in higher education. And

29:55

believe me, higher education will be

29:57

the final and last hard and

29:59

silo if we can regain ground

30:01

for free speech. There is no

30:04

evidence that my colleagues at my

30:06

school or other schools are seriously

30:08

reconsidering. creation of this orthodox and

30:11

tolerant environment. I just had a

30:13

debate at Harvard Law School on

30:15

free speech. And I raised with

30:18

Randall Kennedy, who's a law professor

30:20

there, who was on the other

30:22

side, that Harvard has less than

30:24

8% of its faculty self-identify as

30:27

conservative or Republican. I said, this

30:29

is a country where there's a

30:31

slightly over majority of conservative Republican

30:34

and Libertarian citizens. And you're at

30:36

8%. And Randall Kennedy said, well,

30:38

you know, we're an elite university.

30:40

We don't have to look like

30:43

America. And I respond to that

30:45

you don't even look like Massachusetts.

30:47

I mean, Massachusetts is 30, over

30:50

30% Republican. You don't even look

30:52

like Boston. I mean, Boston is

30:54

about 22%. Republican. But the point

30:57

is that there is no sense

30:59

of a responsibility of faculty to

31:01

create a diversity of viewpoints on

31:03

their campuses. To the contrary, it

31:06

works to their advantage. It works

31:08

their advantage to have publications that

31:10

only run pieces from their viewpoint.

31:13

And even though the institution suffers,

31:15

and certainly the students suffer, that

31:17

self-interest is going to continue to

31:19

guide higher education until donors say

31:22

enough. I'm not going to give

31:24

you any money. There are departments

31:26

that don't have a single conservative

31:29

or Republican, according to self-servays, across

31:31

the country. And eventually donors are

31:33

going to say, why am I

31:36

giving you money when you replicate

31:38

your own views like this? Hi,

31:41

it's Brendan here. I want to

31:43

let you know some exciting news.

31:45

My new book is Out Now.

31:47

It's called After the Pogrom 7th

31:49

of October, Israel, and The Crisis

31:51

of Civilization. And it's available right

31:54

now from Amazon. I'm really proud

31:56

of this book. It is an

31:58

unflinching account of how the West

32:00

failed the moral tension. 7 October

32:02

2023, which of course is the

32:04

day that Hamas and other militants

32:06

invaded Israel and unleashed barbarism. The

32:08

book documents in chilling detail how

32:10

activists, academics and others in the

32:13

West ended up making excuses for

32:15

Hamas's violence, ended up taking the

32:17

side of the pogromists against the

32:19

pogroms victims, and ended up in

32:21

the process turning their backs on

32:23

the values of civilisation. The book

32:25

is fundamentally a call to arms

32:27

for Western civilization. It makes the

32:29

case for restoring enlightenment values and

32:32

standing with Israel while it's under

32:34

attack by radical Islamists. I don't

32:36

know if an author is allowed

32:38

to describe his own book as

32:40

essential reading, but I really do

32:42

think it's essential reading. It's called

32:44

After the Pogrom, 7th of October,

32:46

Israel and the Crisis of Civilization,

32:48

and you can get your copy

32:51

right now on Amazon. And

32:53

in your chapter on higher education, I mean,

32:55

it's an excellent chapter and you talk about

32:57

the university, you say that what was once

32:59

a protected space for viewpoint diversity has become

33:02

a place for enforced orthodoxy. And you make

33:04

the point that those who are accused of

33:06

harmful speech can be stripped of every cherished

33:08

aspect of an intellectual life, including in some

33:10

cases their actual academic position in the university

33:12

itself. But I wanted to ask you about

33:14

those cherished aspects of intellectual life or what

33:17

used to be the cherished aspects of intellectual

33:19

life and what people lose when there is

33:21

this culture of policing so-called harmful speech because

33:23

it seems to me the fact you say

33:25

that the university will be the last silo

33:27

if we ever do, you know, push the

33:29

scales towards favoring freedom of speech, they will

33:32

cling to censorship probably for longer than anyone

33:34

else. But talk a little bit about what

33:36

you think is lost, especially in the university,

33:38

which ought surely to be a sight of

33:40

intellectual experimentation and risk-taking. What is lost when

33:42

there is this stifling culture or this culture

33:44

of conformism? culture of self-policing because people don't

33:47

want to be seen to be saying the

33:49

wrong thing. It seems to me that all

33:51

of that runs entirely counter to the whole

33:53

mission of a university. It certainly does and

33:55

it is unforgivable what we have done to

33:57

not just our institutions but to our students.

33:59

We have denied them the education that we

34:02

had and in my view it truly is

34:04

inexcusable and you know the it has changed

34:06

not just the students and how they are

34:08

learning it's changed the the faculty you know

34:10

most fact to members have remained silent as

34:12

their colleagues have been investigated and coerced and

34:14

canceled and deplatform the silence is deafening you

34:17

know people will write to me on my

34:19

blog to give me things happening at the

34:21

university. And I often say, why don't you

34:23

write about this? And they're very honest. And

34:25

they say, I can't afford to lose my

34:27

job. And what people don't understand, and I

34:29

talk about this in the indispensable right, because

34:32

I talk in the book about people like

34:34

Mike Adams, is that people, what happens is

34:36

that these canceled campaigns are vicious. They take

34:38

away from you. everything that brings meaning to

34:40

you as an intellectual. I've only wanted to

34:42

be a teacher my whole life. It is,

34:44

I consider it one of the great honors

34:47

of my life to be able to teach

34:49

students. And people don't understand what these cancel

34:51

campaigns do. They take away everything that means

34:53

anything to an intellectual. They take away publication

34:55

opportunities. They take away classes. In some cases,

34:57

they take away your job. That's what happened

34:59

to Dr. Mike Adams. He was a professor

35:02

of sociology and criminology in North Carolina. He

35:04

was also a conservative. And because of that,

35:06

he was hit repeatedly with investigations and suspensions

35:08

for saying things that were conservative. And he

35:10

had to go to court repeatedly to keep

35:12

his job. And then one day, you know,

35:14

after all they had gone through the courts

35:17

and he was again back teaching, he made

35:19

some dumb joke on social media, which by

35:21

the way he removed and apologized for very

35:23

quickly. But of course the university said, okay,

35:25

well you're under investigation again and we were

35:27

looking at suspension. And they had finally worn

35:30

him down and they got him to agree

35:32

to a settlement to leave teaching. And shortly

35:34

before that day came, just a couple of

35:36

days before he went home and he blew

35:38

his brains out. And what I say in

35:40

the book is, you know, it's hard to

35:42

obviously understand when people are in that state

35:45

and when they take such action. But I

35:47

sort of understand what he was going through.

35:49

I mean, he was a day or so

35:51

away from no longer being the only person

35:53

he ever wanted to be, that he was

35:55

no longer going to be an academic. He

35:57

was no longer going to be a teacher.

36:00

And he couldn't see anything beyond that point.

36:02

And in many ways it captures the viciousness

36:04

of this movement, how it just strangles the

36:06

life out of education and out of educators.

36:08

It's going to take a long time for

36:10

us to restore this, but there's no evidence

36:12

that we're making serious inroads. The AAUP, which

36:15

is the organization of University Law Professor, has

36:17

just selected a president who is one of

36:19

these sort of woke warriors and has pledged

36:21

that they're going to continue to be part

36:23

of the resistance and sort of replicate what

36:25

has happened before. And once again, the only

36:27

possible way that we are going to reverse

36:30

this is if donors join these dissenters and

36:32

say we're not going to support your university.

36:34

That's the only thing that will happen. We

36:36

see that it can happen. We see the

36:38

universities like Columbia, Harvard. They really got knocked

36:40

back a step when donors started to say

36:42

you're not get my money?

36:45

Yeah, reading that section

36:47

of your book and

36:49

other sections of the

36:51

book too, I was

36:53

really struck just by

36:55

the sheer cruelty of

36:57

censorship. And people will

37:00

often say these days

37:02

that freedom of speech

37:04

is a risky business,

37:06

it's dangerous, it can

37:08

unleash problematic ideas and

37:10

so on. But there's

37:12

nothing more dangerous than

37:15

censorship in terms of

37:17

the threat it poses

37:19

to the human condition

37:21

itself. And that story

37:23

you've just recounted there

37:25

is a good example

37:27

of just how threatening

37:30

censorship can be to

37:32

a person's life and

37:34

their view of themselves.

37:36

I want to touch

37:38

on a part of

37:40

the book that I

37:43

think is probably one

37:45

of the most controversial

37:47

parts of the book

37:49

and certainly that New

37:51

York Times review, let's

37:53

not dwell on that

37:55

review, but that review

37:58

didn't like it very

38:00

much. And this is

38:02

a really interesting chapter

38:04

towards the end of

38:06

the book, which is

38:08

about January 6th and

38:10

the revival of American

38:13

sedition. And I just

38:15

wanted to get your

38:17

thoughts on this, you

38:19

make it so clear

38:21

in that chapter that

38:23

the riot at the

38:25

Capitol on January 6th,

38:28

2021 was a disgrace

38:30

as you describe it.

38:32

And you say you

38:34

sat there open watching

38:36

people storm the Capitol

38:38

and it was awful.

38:40

But then you talk

38:43

about how this, the

38:45

January 6th, the fallout

38:47

from it then became

38:49

another way in which

38:51

the culture of censorship

38:53

got boosted and even

38:55

further empowered. And you

38:58

talk about that in

39:00

two ways really. Firstly,

39:02

the way in which

39:04

the woke left came

39:06

to dominate the language

39:08

that you were allowed

39:10

to use around the

39:13

January 6th. So even

39:15

calling it a riot

39:17

became problematic. You had

39:19

to call it an

39:21

insurrection. Otherwise you risked

39:23

being branded an apologist

39:25

and someone who was

39:28

playing it down. So

39:30

they really had a

39:32

tight reign on the

39:34

language itself that one

39:36

was allowed to use.

39:38

But also you then

39:40

talk about the resuscitation

39:43

of the idea of

39:45

sedition and as you

39:47

call it the revival

39:49

of American sedition and

39:51

the idea of seditious

39:53

conspiracy and the fact

39:55

that some people were

39:58

charged with that particular

40:00

offense. So could could you

40:02

just talk a bit

40:04

about about what you think happened

40:06

after January 6 and how

40:08

it helped to boost to boost

40:11

some of these problematic ideas that

40:13

you discuss in the book. book? Yeah,

40:15

it's a fascinating period, but it's

40:17

not an unfamiliar period. In

40:19

many ways, it repeated the cycle

40:21

that the book talks about the

40:23

book talks terms of state of know,

40:25

the Department of Justice of

40:28

prosecutor announced that he was

40:30

going to bring forth what

40:32

he called shock and awe,

40:34

that he was going to

40:36

hit these defendants so hard

40:38

that no one would ever

40:40

think of coming to Washington

40:42

to do anything like this

40:44

again. again. And so And so they

40:46

arrested hundreds of people. The

40:48

fact is that virtually all

40:50

of them were charged with

40:53

relatively minor crimes. Things like trespass,

40:55

entry, the more entry, would be the

40:57

more serious ones would be

40:59

property damage. There was only

41:01

a handful that were charged

41:03

actually with seditious conspiracy, which

41:05

by the way, way, include just

41:08

obstructing official proceedings. know, so it's the

41:10

world's broadest type world's broadest type

41:12

of like crime. It goes back

41:14

It's a crime that is crime that is

41:16

designed to make it almost impossible for

41:18

people to challenge its scope. scope. know,

41:20

the fact is that, you know,

41:22

I was doing the coverage, helped

41:24

me contribute the coverage on January

41:26

6th. I I criticized Trump's speech on

41:28

the air while he was still

41:30

giving. giving it. And to me, me it

41:33

was a desecration of our constitutional

41:35

process. But the next day,

41:37

when this insurrection mantra started in

41:39

the media, I wrote a

41:41

piece saying, in is not an

41:43

insurrection. We know what insurrections are.

41:45

is This is a riot. It's

41:47

a protest that got out

41:49

of control. became a riot, just

41:51

like, by the way, got out

41:53

the White House from the left

41:55

a riot. a riot. And more

41:57

officers were injured outside the White

41:59

House. then were injured on Capitol

42:01

Hill. And both were inexcusable. There

42:04

was a total collapse of security

42:06

at the Congress, and we're just

42:09

now exploring how that happened. But

42:11

the minute you question the use

42:13

of insurrection, you are put on

42:16

this list of dissenters. And the

42:18

fact is, polls show that the

42:20

public does not view this as

42:23

an insurrection. that polls have shown

42:25

that the public view it as

42:27

a riot. And I think that

42:30

this was a mantra in the

42:32

media and academia in politics. But

42:34

time and time again, the American

42:37

public has shown a remarkable common

42:39

sense. The vast majority of us

42:41

are appalled by what happened on

42:44

January 6th. That was our capital.

42:46

That was our constitutional process. And

42:48

there are very few people that

42:51

defend what happened in that riot.

42:53

But the American people also see

42:55

it for what it was. You

42:58

know, we watched it. When I

43:00

was doing the coverage, I noted

43:03

that I'd never seen such light

43:05

security in such a major protest.

43:07

I mean, our cameras were showing.

43:10

in some cases, major entry points

43:12

with, you know, four or five

43:14

bicycle cops, you know, trying to

43:17

block these roads, it made no

43:19

sense at all because the National

43:21

Guard had just been called out

43:24

not long before to stop the

43:26

riot at the White House, and

43:28

Trump had to be taken to

43:31

a secure location. But they called

43:33

out the National Guard, they put

43:35

up fencing, and it stopped. That

43:38

same approach was offered to Congress.

43:40

There's still an investigation going on

43:42

why it was declined. But the

43:45

fact is that the security perimeter

43:47

collapsed very quickly and it unleashed

43:49

this rush into the capital. is

43:52

really horrible, but it's not an

43:54

insurrection. And, but it really does,

43:57

as you know, and we explore

43:59

this in the indispensable right, is,

44:01

once again, this was state rage.

44:04

You know, that you would rage

44:06

rhetoric on January 6, and then

44:08

it immediately became state rage, as

44:11

they arrested hundreds, and people were.

44:13

you know, canceled or blacklisted if

44:15

they didn't use the term insurrection.

44:18

The National Public Radio and other,

44:20

and the AP particularly recently, still

44:22

uses the term. They still as

44:25

a matter of news, as fact.

44:27

refer to January 6 as insurrection,

44:29

even though very few people do

44:32

that, including most of the media

44:34

has started to, has gone back

44:36

to referring to it as a

44:39

riot, but it shows how this

44:41

orthodoxy still has this hold on

44:43

our dialogue and our debate. You

44:46

know, that term state rage that

44:48

you use, I think is such

44:51

a helpful term and it really

44:53

connected with me and you know

44:55

not only in the US context

44:58

but if we look at the

45:00

British context and the European context

45:02

there is very clear instances of

45:05

state rage where the state clamps

45:07

down pretty viciously on speech that

45:09

it considers harmful or or untrue

45:12

or problematic in some way, you

45:14

know, listeners will be familiar with

45:16

the recent case of police in

45:19

Britain visiting journalists, Alison Pearson, to

45:21

interrogate her about some tweet she

45:23

wrote a year ago. There have

45:26

been many such cases in the

45:28

UK of people being, you know,

45:30

talked to and sometimes arrested by

45:33

the police for things they write

45:35

online. And just after the riots

45:37

we had in England, a few

45:40

months ago, people were actually imprisoned

45:42

not for taking part some for

45:45

taking part in the rights but

45:47

some for things they wrote on

45:49

Facebook and Twitter. the riots were

45:52

taking place. So there are very

45:54

clear cases of, you know, that

45:56

may well have been street rage

45:59

from ordinary people, but then it's

46:01

responded to with this state rage.

46:03

And I wanted to ask you

46:06

about the relationship between that state

46:08

rage and then just a broader

46:10

culture of self-policing, because People will

46:13

sometimes say, well, there are fewer

46:15

state laws against speech than there

46:17

were in the past, or the

46:20

state doesn't quite put the boot

46:22

on the neck in the way

46:24

that it might have done 100

46:27

years ago, or 400 years ago,

46:29

if you say something that's... heretical

46:32

or blasphemous or whatever else it

46:34

might be. And there's truth in

46:36

that, of course, but it does

46:39

seem to me that there is

46:41

a relationship between this message that

46:43

the state and the media classes

46:46

sends about dangerous speech and the

46:48

trickle-down impact that it has on

46:50

people's willingness to express themselves. And

46:53

you know, I often think of

46:55

the case of JK-K-rolling, for example,

46:57

who speaks out very forthrightly on

47:00

the issue of transgenderism and women's

47:02

rights and people try to cancel

47:04

her but she's uncancellable. But the

47:07

impact of the demonization of her

47:09

of course is that it sends

47:11

a signal to women who are

47:14

less culturally influential than she is,

47:16

less rich, less powerful, it sends

47:18

a message to them saying well

47:21

you better not express your gender

47:23

critical views because imagine what will

47:26

happen to you. Yeah, I think

47:28

Jakey rolling many respects is the

47:30

sort of Elon Musk of the

47:33

UK. I mean, they finally this

47:35

irresistible force found an unmovable object

47:37

and she has taken a lot

47:40

of heat and I've written a

47:42

great deal about her because I

47:44

think that you're absolutely right that

47:47

this was a quintessential fight on

47:49

free speech and she has held

47:51

the line to a degree that

47:54

very few people are willing to

47:56

do it because the whole idea

47:58

of state not really to arrest

48:01

everyone with ideas you don't want

48:03

to be heard, right? The idea

48:05

is that you make examples of

48:08

people so that the vast majority

48:10

self-censor. And his example in the

48:12

indispensable right, where I talk about

48:15

one UK case involving a guy

48:17

who quite frankly was a bit

48:20

of a loser more than a

48:22

little bit. I mean, he was

48:24

sort of a horrible guy. He

48:27

had rooms filled with all types

48:29

of horrible stuff. racist, anti-Semitic stuff.

48:31

It was like, I hate, you

48:34

know, alter. And he was ultimately

48:36

arrested. Now, this was a guy

48:38

who was not arrested for any

48:41

conduct that I could see. He

48:43

was arrested because of the contents

48:45

of that room, his viewpoints. And

48:48

the court upheld his conviction for

48:50

what was described as toxic ideologies.

48:53

And this concept of toxic ideology

48:55

is an amazingly dangerous concept because

48:57

it easily can become a sort

49:00

of thought crime. You know, you

49:02

are allowed to, you know, bunker

49:04

yourself in this hate-filled room of

49:06

yours. and surround yourself with these

49:08

horrible images and material. What society's

49:10

interest is to prevent you from

49:13

engaging in conduct, not holding toxic

49:15

ideologies or even expressing toxic ideologies.

49:17

But once you start to uphold

49:19

convictions of people like that, it

49:21

sends the message. And that's one

49:24

of the reasons why in Germany

49:26

only 17% of people feel comfortable

49:28

speaking publicly, right? You know, when

49:30

I spoke to this one group,

49:32

I said, you know, in Germany,

49:34

you just arrested a guy because

49:37

he had a Hitler ringtone on

49:39

his phone. Now what did that

49:41

really achieve? Right? How did that

49:43

work out for you? And the

49:45

answer is it achieved nothing obviously,

49:48

but it sent a message to

49:50

everyone else that even your ring

49:52

can result in your being arrested.

49:54

And that chilling effect is exactly

49:56

what the state wants. Yeah, very

49:58

well put. Okay, Jonathan, just a

50:01

couple more questions for you. One

50:03

of the things I appreciated most

50:05

about your book, because this is

50:07

a thought I've had many times

50:09

over the years and you put

50:11

it incredibly well. And you've mentioned

50:14

it already, which is that very

50:16

often these days free speech is

50:18

defended as a functional thing, something

50:20

that's helpful, I guess is how

50:22

some people would understand it. Free

50:25

speech is useful because it makes

50:27

it easier to have a democracy

50:29

because you can share political ideas.

50:31

Or it's, some people will argue,

50:33

even people who are very much

50:35

on the side of freedom of

50:38

speech will make the argument, well

50:40

it helps to drain tensions from

50:42

society, it helps to drain conflict

50:44

from society, therefore it's a useful

50:46

pacifying tool. That's one of the

50:49

arguments we hear a lot these

50:51

days as well. these very functional

50:53

treatments of freedom of speech and

50:55

you make a much more profound

50:57

philosophical point which is that freedom

50:59

of speech is actually the very

51:02

essence of being human it is

51:04

what makes us human and you

51:06

kind of push back against this

51:08

overly functional treatment of this incredibly

51:10

important human virtue so can explain

51:13

a little bit about why you

51:15

thought it was important to do

51:17

that? Well, you

51:19

know, what the book begins with

51:21

is an effort to drill down

51:23

on this concept. Where does it

51:25

come from? I mean, there's two

51:28

different views, right? One is it

51:30

comes from the government, that that's

51:32

more of a positivist view, that

51:34

the government allows for free speech

51:36

because it achieves so much good

51:39

in a democracy. The other possibility,

51:41

which is the one I subscribe

51:43

to, is that it's a natural

51:45

right. It's an autonomous theory. It

51:47

belongs to us because we can't

51:50

be fully human without it. And

51:52

we're surrounded by evidence of the

51:54

truth of that, right? The very

51:56

concept of a starving artist captures

51:58

it. You have people like Van

52:01

Go, who sold money that he

52:03

needed to eat. order to buy

52:05

canvas. Survival, sustaining yourself physically, is

52:07

considered the most basic and overriding

52:09

impulse of humanity. And yet here

52:12

you've got artists and he's not

52:14

the only one, but we're literally

52:16

starving themselves so that they could

52:18

project more of their visions into

52:20

the society around them. It is

52:23

that desire, it is that basic

52:25

human impulse that the book tries

52:27

to explore. that what the indispensable

52:29

right sort of challenges the reader

52:31

to do is the pick-aside. If

52:34

you believe that free speech is

52:36

a human right, if you believe

52:38

that it's an autonomous right that

52:40

belongs to us, whether you believe

52:42

it came from God, or whether

52:45

you believe it's just the fact

52:47

that being human is to be

52:49

able to express yourself. Then that

52:51

changes how we deal with conflicts.

52:54

It moves the center of gravity

52:56

closer to the individual. It makes

52:58

it more difficult to make the

53:00

tradeoffs that we have made throughout

53:02

our history. You know, the reason

53:05

I entitled this book, The Indispensable

53:07

Right, is because that term came

53:09

from an opinion written by a

53:11

great civil libertarian, Justice Lewis Brandeis.

53:13

And Brandeis was a genius who

53:16

saw individual rights. years before the

53:18

rest of the court was willing

53:20

to accept. He could see a

53:22

horizon that his colleagues could not

53:24

imagine. And in this opinion, Whitney,

53:27

he wrote beautifully about how this

53:29

is our indispensable right. It's the

53:31

right to guarantees all other rights.

53:33

But in that opinion, he upheld

53:35

the conviction of Charlotte Anita Whitney,

53:38

a communist who was arrested for

53:40

speaking against lynching. And what the

53:42

what the title is meant to

53:44

capture is that even Lewis Brandeis,

53:46

this great civil libertarian, in an

53:49

opinion that wrote beautifully about the

53:51

freedom of speech. indispensable made it

53:53

very much dispensable in the case

53:55

of Whitney. He sent her off

53:57

to jail for what is clearly

54:00

political speech. And that's the problem,

54:02

that unless you pick a side,

54:04

unless you view this as an

54:06

autonomous right, then these tradeoffs continue

54:08

and you will remain on that

54:11

slippery slope where we are now.

54:13

Yeah, and that takes me very

54:15

nicely onto my final question for

54:17

you, which is about where we

54:19

are now and where we might

54:22

go next. So I'm asking you

54:24

to get your... crystal ball out

54:26

and tell us what you think

54:28

will happen in the future in

54:30

relation to the indispensable right. And

54:33

you know when I was reading

54:35

the closing chapter in the book,

54:37

I think it's the closing chapter,

54:39

it's towards the end of the

54:41

book where you strike a slightly

54:44

pessimistic note to the extent, I

54:46

guess the aim is to alert

54:48

the reader to how serious the

54:50

problem is today. And you make

54:52

the point that there have been

54:55

many anti-free speech currents throughout history

54:57

but the one that we face

54:59

today seems to have some uniquely

55:01

dangerous elements to it and you

55:03

talk about the convergence of the

55:06

academic media and corporate elites with

55:08

government all to the end of

55:10

crushing speech in one way or

55:12

another and it's a very accurate

55:14

description of the time we live

55:17

in but I wonder if you

55:19

see things maybe improving in the

55:21

near future I wonder if you

55:23

think the re-election of

55:25

Donald Trump and the willingness of

55:27

tens of millions of Americans to

55:30

take a punt on this man

55:32

who is not politically correct and

55:34

who is willing to say things

55:36

that you're not really supposed to

55:38

say. And I wonder if you

55:40

think Elon Musk's takeover of X

55:43

and all these other kinds of

55:45

developments might possibly open up a

55:47

space for more daring forms of

55:49

thought and a more kind of

55:51

more certain defense of freedom of

55:53

speech itself. Do you hold out

55:56

hope that things will improve in

55:58

the future? Yeah, I actually viewed

56:00

book is hopeful. I was shocked

56:02

a week ago I was speaking

56:04

in Colorado and this wonderful lady

56:06

walked up and said, you know,

56:09

I read your book, I loved

56:11

your book, but I was wondering

56:13

if today, could you say something

56:15

positive? And I was crushed. I

56:17

was like, I honestly thought I

56:19

was being positive, but it sort

56:22

of made me feel like Woody

56:24

Allen when in a speech, someone

56:26

said, we'd really like you to

56:28

end out a positive note and

56:30

Woody Allen reportedly said, I really

56:33

don't do positive. I can't offer

56:35

certainly two negatives to make a

56:37

positive. And one is, it's not

56:39

working. You know, the fact is

56:41

that we have this unprecedented alliance

56:43

against free speech. We've never seen

56:46

anything like this coalition of media,

56:48

academia, corporations, the government. We've had

56:50

corporations fund anti-free speech commercials. Facebook

56:52

had this truly creepy commercial series

56:54

in which they targeted young people

56:56

and sort of invited them to

56:59

celebrate what they call content moderation,

57:01

a truly or wellian term for

57:03

censorship. And it didn't work. Yeah,

57:05

they moved the needle a little

57:07

bit. But it takes a lot

57:09

more than that to get a

57:12

free people to give up their

57:14

freedom. And the fact is, I

57:16

think that they did give up

57:18

the ghost a bit. They're going

57:20

back to old school. They're going

57:22

back to Europe to get the

57:25

people like Hillary Clinton when Musk

57:27

took over Twitter. What was the

57:29

first thing she seemed to do?

57:31

She went to Europe and said,

57:33

use the Digital Services Act to

57:35

force Musk to censor Americans. It's

57:38

old school, right? They're going back

57:40

to the government just cracking down.

57:42

They're going back to state rage.

57:44

And that shows that they weren't

57:46

able to convince enough people. And

57:49

so I think that what you

57:51

have is a movement that is

57:53

going to continue to grow, but

57:55

it gets to my second negative

57:57

point, which is that It

58:00

can't work. long as As long

58:02

as around. You are still around.

58:04

a You know, there's a

58:06

certain optimism to to the indispensable

58:09

right that I that this nice

58:11

person had missed. Jonathan,

58:13

thank you very much. much. thank

58:15

you. you. Thanks

58:18

for listening to The Brandon O 'Neill Show.

58:21

And don't forget to register for your

58:23

tickets for my live discussion with James Dreyfuss

58:25

on Wednesday the 18th of December. And

58:27

don't forget to donate to forget get your

58:29

hands on one of our your hands on one of

58:31

Find all the links in the show notes

58:33

the by going to notes or by going to spiked .com