Should You Personally Be in Charge of What Other People Say, Think and Write?

And what if I don't agree with that premise?

So the other day some moist, finger-sniffing poser in a mask walked up to my partner Clementine’s table at the anarchist bookfair in Montreal and dumped hot coffee all over like $500 worth of her writing, and then ran away. Chatter on the internet the next day indicated that people were referring to this as a ‘deplatforming’. On the one hand it’s a real little-bitch move, which a friend of Clementine’s correctly identified as deeply ‘bébé lala’¹ ; it’s petulant and cowardly to destroy literature, with a mask on, especially the literature of a five foot one woman who mostly writes about having PTSD. Plus, Clementine did a fundraiser to make up for the lost income and her audience, disgusted by this stupid bullshit, hit the target in like fifteen minutes, so it’s not like it succeeded in hurting her financially. Mostly, it’s just exhausting and juvenile live-action role-play stuff, an attempt at bullying carried out by the kind of people who fart nervously when someone walks too close to them on the sidewalk.

On the other hand, it speaks to something really fucking rotten and frankly scary infesting the anarchist scene: the sincere belief held by some groups and individuals that they personally should be in charge of what other people say, think and write. Obviously, they would deny this, but it’s exactly what it is. They think, on some level whether clearly articulated or not, that in the matter of policing speech, everyone should defer to them. They believe that they are savants invested with a special knowledge regarding what ideas are acceptable. They believe this in spite of there being no evidence that this is so, or that such an authority is needed, wanted or warranted; and they believe that it is their right and their duty to enforce their decrees in the milieu.

Insofar as people try to overtly justify this kind of thing, this notion springs from the old antifascist tactic of deplatforming. Basically, the idea is that the attempts of fascists to organize in public represent such a danger to ordinary people that it becomes acceptable to override concerns about liberty, speech, and political expression in order to disrupt fascist rallies, tear down fascist posters and so on. As far as this goes, it makes sense and I don’t have any particular problem with it. Where it becomes a problem is when the slippage starts to occur. If you can deplatform neo-Nazis, why not other ‘dangerous’ people? Why not people who have a difference of opinion about hot-button issues like puberty blockers or vaccines? Why not people who support the wrong kind of leftist ideology? Why not people you heard vague rumours about years ago? Why not Clementine?

The reason it’s arguably alright to waive the political rights of fascists is because fascists, openly and overtly, want to waive the political rights of everyone. They want dictatorships, death camps, and deportations; torture squads, secret police, and mass murder; the worship of hierarchy, orgies of violence in order to renew the nation with the blood of the degenerate, and so on; they want fascism. It’s not because we think they have a ‘shitty take’ on something, and it doesn’t take a special caste of brave speech-police to identify neo-Nazi views. The minute people forget this and assume that they can just ‘deplatform’ anyone they want, on any basis, the whole concept loses all political and ethical credibility, and simply becomes a variety of very unevenly-applied, very disorganized authoritarianism. That would be frustrating enough in any other political scene, but when self-proclaimed anarchists do it it’s doubly demoralizing because it just completely negates some of the most basic tenets of the anarchist tradition.

Regardless of the fact that this is some asshole pouring coffee on some books and zines, and not a mob setting fires or something, it points to a disturbing lack of really basic political principles. These people need to sincerely ask themselves what gives them the right to decide who gets to say what where. It’s not a trivial question; in fact it’s central to anarchist thought. On what basis is it permissible for political actors to constrain the speech of others? Is it when we disagree with them? If that were true, it would be permissible for all actors to always constrain each other’s speech at all times. Is it when we disagree with them plus we’re super duper sure that we’re right? Sorry, still doesn’t cut it. Is it when we disagree with them plus we’re super duper sure that we’re right plus we heard rumours about them? Still no. A difficult pill to swallow, maybe, but the fact is that it isn’t ethically permissible for you to destroy literature or constrain speech on the basis of how you feel in your tum-tum. Doing so just makes you a little tyrant; an inept and ineffective wannabe little tyrant, but a little tyrant all the same.

If you don’t like Clementine, that was always allowed. If you don’t like Clementine’s ideas, that was always allowed too. If you want to write an article about why you disagree with her, go for it. If you want to write a zine about, I don’t know, how cancel culture is actually super dope and really helpful for the Left, you are not alone. If you want to write an entire set of essays carefully considering and responding to every major political claim Clementine has made, well, I know you won’t because no one ever does, but please, go ahead. No one is stopping you and it would be completely defensible, even productive, to do so. It’s fine. Do it.

But, little tyrant, that’s different than what you did. I don’t agree with the idea that you should be in charge. I don’t want you in charge and I doubt a whole lot of people would. I don’t think there should be some guy who gets to decide if my girlfriend can distribute her writing in peace, and if I did, I wouldn’t pick you for the job. I don’t think that position is needed and I don’t think I’m the only one. If that position did exist and for some reason was needed, I don’t think it should be occupied by an anonymous person in a mask. I think believing that you have the right to do shit like this is narcissistic and individualist to an extreme degree. I think you should reassess what you actually believe in and make sure you’re in the right place. And I believe that you are failing to understand some of the most basic proposals within anarchism, such as respecting the autonomy of others, and not being a narc-ass little fucking coward.

1. (Quebec) (Casual) (Pejorative): Refusing to reason and being afraid of everything.