SUBSTACKERS AGAINST NAZIS - Gaining freedom by taking away freedom?
Is removing the possibility of expressing thoughts pertaining to the extreme right a good idea in terms of freedom of expression?
SUBSTACKERS AGAINST NAZIS
An interesting international debate has recently opened up on the fact that Substack hosts authors who express extreme right-wing ideas. A movement has sprung up - within the community of the well-known social network - which aims to bring 'the issue' to light and ask the three founders Chris Best, Hamish McKenzie and Jairaj Sethi for further clarification as to why these authors have the freedom to express themselves and, above all, monetise their work. This movement is called 'Substackers against Nazis' and includes thousands of authors from all over the world who have been publishing articles on the subject almost daily for the past few weeks.
I quote below one of McKenzie's latest statements on the matter:
I just want to make it clear that we don't like Nazis either - we would like nobody to have those ideas. But some people have those and other extreme views. For this reason, we don't think that censorship (including through demonetisation of publications) makes the problem go away - on the contrary, it makes it worse.
This story is particularly interesting to me because it opens up an issue - ethics - that is coming to the fore powerfully, but which is systematically approached with the same reactive dynamic - deployment. As one might imagine, the debate is about 'what is right and what is wrong'.
It tends to work that way in all contexts. Politics, work, relationships. Everything is based solely and uniquely on the parameters that the individual involved believes to be correct. Consequently, anything that for some reason does not meet the personal standards of agreeableness will be mathematically discarded. The tendency will be to look for other people who 'respect' those same parameters, creating a sort of 'party' - the 'right' one of course - outside of which everything is questioned.
I have just described a dynamic in which we are all immersed. Every day and everywhere, we find ourselves in the position of having to take sides, with the possibility of activating that stupid current of thought according to which a person who does not take sides is somehow weak, spineless.
As always, a clarification is in order. It is obligatory in these cases to specify the context of the analysis, so I will help myself with an example. If I am attacked by someone with a knife, it is obvious that I must defend myself or at least seek a solution to evade the impending threat. If at that juncture a person came to my rescue, we could declare without a shadow of a doubt that that same person was taking my defence, supporting my 'side' and opposing the opposite side, constituted by the attacker. I have made this 'disclaimer' to explain that the case I am about to analyse has nothing to do with the example just given. A human being with intelligence is clearly capable of understanding that in the event of an invasion of territory, it is necessary to organise and defend oneself accordingly. This will lead to the creation of two or more sides which - in these terms - complete the form of 'war'. No war is currently taking place on Substack, although evidently more than a few people think it is.
ADDITION LOGIC
When I discovered Substack, I had the impression that I was facing a kind of revolution in the world of social networks. I had never seen a web space with so much useful information and authors making their knowledge available in such a usable and colourful way. On Substack you can find all kinds of professionals. From the investigative journalist to the author who writes cookery recipes. From the psychologist to the cartoonist. In a short time I have abandoned all the most fashionable social networks to dive into this new world. However, I will not hide the fact that I first find myself reading articles whose authors express concepts and thoughts that I do not consider compatible with my 'world view'. So far so normal, as each of us is nothing more than the sum of our own experiences. The thought that several people should draw the same conclusions from different and unique contexts would be totally stupid. If I were to give rise to the dynamic of taking sides, I would have to 'ban' such authors or systematically attack them in the comments section by expressing my opinion in order to challenge their assertions or ideas.
I move in this space according to the logic of addition, i.e. that everything should be part of a personal cultural background that should not exclude anything within it. I believe that everything I come into contact with, be it the article of a war reporter or the protest of an impatient customer for a job that was not done properly, must have the same 'right to attention' on my part. This approach is only feasible in the absence of deployment dynamics.
Any information that I perceive as 'wrong' or even worse 'useless' will automatically be transformed into data that will increase my field of experience. It will allow me to develop analyses, concepts and, above all, to learn about worlds that until then I had always felt had nothing to do with me. Apart from the purely conceptual and cognitive side, it is a modus operandi that also makes one feel better in psycho-physical terms. However, I find it plausible to think that for some this dynamic is still difficult to implement, as they are still immersed in the dangerous world of extreme polarisation 'either you are with me or you are against me'. The case of 'Substackers against Nazis' is a concrete example of this.
I will not, in fact, analyse the issue by expressing my opinion in favour of one or the other, but rather by trying to understand what is the most logical and intelligent behaviour to adopt in situations like these. Intelligence and logic disregard the concept of taking sides. Always.
When I read articles whose authors express nationalist or Nazi-like ideas, I do not deny that I feel a jolt. Everything that happened in certain historical contexts I still find inexplicable, yet this gives me the strength to research and not stop at the surface of things. It is precisely the fact that I consider it inexplicable that moves me to want to find an explanation! However, if I were to stop at the first emotion evoked by the reading of an article glorifying Nazism, you will understand that I would get very little further. The fact that there are authors who feel some sort of disgust or unease when reading certain information is legitimate and - as I have already written - sometimes it happens to me too. On the other hand, the fact that the author of an article that provoked that particular emotional outburst should be restricted is another matter altogether and I will explain why. It is very important that you read what I am about to write carefully because - for the reasons just mentioned - it is easy for you to misunderstand the message I am trying to convey.
The newly established community is asking Substack to block authors who express extreme right-wing thoughts. In addition to articles, several Substackers are also using the Notes tool to express quick opinions and emphasise their desire to no longer share their Substack space with other authors who, from their point of view, should no longer be allowed to write.
In my opinion, this is a protest that will not lead to any results, either in the event that it is accepted, or in the event that it wanes over time. Let us take a look at the past to better understand the matter.
NUREMBERG TRIAL
The Nuremberg Trials began in November 1945 with the aim of trying the crimes perpetrated by the Nazi government before and during World War II. Following this event, the constitutions of states were reorganised with - also - the aim of containing within them rules regulating the apology for the return of totalitarian regimes. In Italy, law 645/1952 was introduced to punish apology for fascism, although a few years after its introduction it manifested constitutional flaws in terms of freedom of thought and freedom of association, rights guaranteed by the Italian Constitution itself. In 1991, Giorgio Pisanò was put on trial on charges of reconstituting the fascist party, but everything was dismissed because the fact 'did not exist'. In Italy there are also several organisations that seem to be related to fascist thought, such as Casa Pound or Forza Nuova. I mention these facts to make the reader understand that a trial such as the one at Nuremberg - which put numerous exponents of the Nazi party to the gallows - could not absolutely block the formation of thought groups that in some way 'recalled' ideologies close to the extreme right. The above-mentioned groups are still active today and gather around them several thousand members.
Try to reflect. Can we deduce that a possible new Nuremberg Trials would raze these organisations to the ground? Do you think that post-fascist or Nazi-like organisations are limited to Italian borders? A few years ago, an organisation practising 'esoteric Nazism' was found in Germany. In Ukraine, there is a battalion of volunteers called 'Azov' with a neo-Nazi orientation. Even in the United States there is an actual 'American Nazi Party', which is still operational today.
The conclusion I reach is this: if the resounding defeat of a party that was the architect of one of the bloodiest genocides in history was not enough to put an end to an ideology, how can a social network do anything about it?
Let's assume that tomorrow the three co-founders of Substack decide to listen to the demands of 'Substackers against Nazis' and close the taps to all those who express extreme right-wing ideas. Does anyone really believe that any neo-Nazi or fascist ideologies can be stopped? I don't think it takes a particularly great cognitive effort to realise that the people involved will move somewhere else to express their thoughts.
Let me add a further analysis. Let us still assume that all these 'neo-Nazi wannabes' are taken out of the way and Substack thus becomes the social 'champion of democracy and the fight against Nazi ideology'. We have achieved the result of being able to write within a space that is not 'soiled' by violent ideologies that evoke dark times. What then about the web spaces where these people will move to find free manoeuvre?
It occurs to me that the priority is not so much to eradicate extreme right-wing thoughts as violent and inciting to hate, but rather to be able to work in a 'clean' social space, where those who express their displeasure with the choices of the three co-founders express themselves according to canons that they themselves deem 'acceptable'. It would be, if this were the case, a totally self-referential operation with the sole purpose of 'being at peace with oneself', as sharing a space with authors who express a thought different from one's own - albeit extreme on many aspects - 'is not OK'.
Let us now return for a moment to the beginning of the paragraph. In Italy there is a law - 645/1952 - that condemns apology for fascism. I am also quoting www.laleggepertutti.it with regard to the crime of racial hatred:
The Penal Code also punishes with imprisonment of up to one year and six months, or with a fine of up to six thousand euros, anyone who 'propagates ideas based on racial or ethnic superiority or hatred, or incites to commit acts of discrimination on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds'. The incriminating provision dates back to 2018 and is therefore of recent introduction in our penal system but similar conducts were previously punished by the so-called 'Royal Law' of 1975, which in turn was based on the International Convention against Racism adopted by the UN, the United Nations Organisation.
The conclusion is that any analysis on the subject is certainly useful from a sociological point of view, in order to understand how society works both outside and inside social networks, but in terms of the end result, we will achieve nothing, as to date, the only figure capable of intervening in this regard is the legislator.
It therefore makes no sense to take away the possibility for people to express their thoughts, whatever they may be, because there is a competent and officially recognised authority that will come into play the moment a crime is committed.
How can any one person put himself above the legislature and decide who can express his opinion and who cannot? It is also curious that many of these Substackers manifest at the same time “liberal” thoughts or those belonging to the American 'democratic left'. It brings a smile to my face to think that it is precisely these who are calling for the restriction of free speech. They could probably be the same ones who until a few months ago were shouting and screaming - in the wake of the 'pandemic danger' - against those who questioned what was happening. The same ones who, at least in Italy, supported the policies of restrictions and harassment against those who deliberately and legitimately decided not to undergo the vaccine, paying out of their own pockets for the control tests and risking losing their jobs and not being able to support themselves and their families. It is just as curious that at that time, from their point of view, the legislature represented the absolute truth and consequently it was necessary to respect everything that was legislated, even if it was clearly at odds with what were and still are constitutional dictates. A justice that operates in alternating phases, only when it is most convenient. Two weights, two measures.
ETHICS
A word that is used very often in 'liberal' circles is 'ethics'. Sometimes it is also replaced with 'moral', but I do not want to dwell on the difference between the two. The etymological dictionary explains - very clearly as always - that 'ethics' means 'usage', 'custom', 'character'. To say that something is 'ethical' therefore means that it is part of common custom. We can say that coffee is ethical today, at least in the West. It is ethical to work eight hours a day, and it is also ethical to separate from one's wife (divorce cases are increasing dramatically in Italy). The confusion occurs at the level of interpretation, as those who use this word tend to want to express their personal positive judgement on a given fact of reality.
Although it has nothing to do with what is described in the etymological dictionary, the word 'ethics' is given the meaning of 'justice'. But if what is customary is ethical, does that mean that in the 18th century it was ethical to buy African slaves? Was it ethical in the Middle Ages to burn women? Was it also ethical to deport Jews to concentration camps between '33 and '45? We are faced with a very, very serious problem of interpretation.
From my point of view, we are facing one of the many distortions of the language carried out daily by people who speak without knowing the meaning of the words they use. It is not my intention to pose with superiority, quite the contrary. The exercise I have just put into practice is available to anyone, at any time and without any cost in economic terms. I simply went and read the meaning of the word in the etymological dictionary. It would therefore be ethical for liberal Substackers to have a space 'cleansed' of neo-Nazi thoughts. However, I feel compelled to ask a couple of questions:
How can I put myself in a position to differentiate what is ethical - hence customary - from what is not?
How can I claim to eradicate extreme ideologies using methodologies - such as censorship - that are an integral part of the very systems I want to combat?
LA ZANZARA
In Italy there is a well-known radio programme called 'Zanzara', hosted by journalists Giuseppe Cruciani and David Parenzo. On this programme, people from all over Italy are invited to speak, generally to give them the opportunity to express their opinions on mostly current events. It is the most popular podcast of all, and during the two hours in which the programme takes place, there is a melting pot of quarrels, insolence, swearing, shouting, provocation and obscenities with the occasional physical presence of guests of dubious 'reputations'.
Any description is purely superfluous, so I invite the reader - should he or she feel the need - to listen to at least one episode (video versions are also available on YouTube). The reason why I feel the need to mention this programme is the fact that very often self-styled 'fascists' or 'admirers of His Excellency the Duce' are called upon to speak, to quote the host Cruciani, who does not hide his pleasure in giving these people free speech.
In fact, it must be admitted that at the media level Cruciani has managed to create a very simple and effective scheme in that listening to a person who openly declares himself to be a fascist can also be entertaining.
I would also point out that the programme is owned by Sole24, one of the most important and long-running publishing groups in Italy that deals with issues related to the economy. On balance, it is a crazy splinter within a universe of formalities and information of a clearly 'politically correct' nature. Perhaps this is precisely the reason why for more than fifteen years, La Zanzara has managed to broadcast without any 'hiccups'. For all intents and purposes, Cruciani's Zanzara is inside a glass bell.
The picture is the same as in Substack, with the difference that nobody at Zanzara complains that there are people who glorify fascism.
Net of the modalities, the personalities involved and the purpose of the two platforms, the situation is exactly the same: there are people expressing support for post-fascist and far-right ideas. What is the result in real terms? Nothing, except a dulling of the senses due to repeatedly listening to fundamentally useless information that would take place even without the presence of these 'self-described fascists'.
Sometimes it happens that some “liberal” intervenes posing the problem of a fictitious 'return of fascism in Italy', but the motivations are so weak and sterile as to leave room for improvement, in addition to encountering harsh opposition from Cruciani whenever someone introduces the subject.
Exactly like the protest of the 'Substackers against the Nazis', to whom I strongly suggest a change of strategy. Indeed, I would suggest trying to understand why a certain idea takes hold. Try to take a step in the opposite direction instead of putting up walls. Thought, whatever form it takes, cannot be blocked, a bit like grass. No matter how much cement you put on it, it will always find a way to rise to the surface.