Recent trending news is that Reddit has banned about 2,000 subreddits for breaking rules (mostly around hate speech). Notably, the ban included /r/The_Donald (a far-right subreddit) and /r/ChapoTrapHouse (a leftist subreddit).
On the heels of celebrities gleefully peacocking over who can remove their previous “problematic content” best (like Tina Fey removing 30 Rock episodes, or old episodes of the Golden Girls) – this might initially come across as continued bending to nonexistent pressures of Black Lives Matter protests. Let’s be clear here – people are not out there protesting to get 30 Rock to withdraw four of its episodes and to get cartoons to recast voice actors to people of color. If anything, it’s a distraction from the very real demands of accountability and abolition for the police.
But Reddit’s choice to ban subreddits both on the political left and right certainly protects them from criticism that they might be caving to pressures from leftists, which is how the accusations tend to go these days.
Is it okay to ban things? What kind of ideology are you espousing by promoting banning? What are you espousing if you oppose it?
Reddit certainly has the legal right to shut down any subreddit or conversation it finds inappropriate. It’s right there in the terms and conditions, and they’re a private company and can de-platform anyone they like. But as we all know, what is “legal” is not and will never be equivalent to what is “right”. So let’s not talk about the First Amendment rights, because that’s not what’s at stake here.
We’re talking about deplatforming, and shutting down dissenting opinions. We’re talking about the campus “free speech” protests and controversies. But also – we’re talking about activists calling for banning cars. Plastic bag bans. Banning substances like marijuana. Banning the Confederate flag. Banning hate speech. And so on.
The purpose of a ban is to shut down behavior considered to be socially deviant or wrong in some way. For long periods of time, civil rights that leftists fought for were banned, like gay marriage. Many activists nowadays cry foul at the idea that the government might have the power to grant a queer couple the validity of their marriage, and that unbanning it is just reinforcing the power of the government to arbitrate such matters.
Banning is, in its simplest form, removal of freedom. Shouldn’t any self-respecting anarchist oppose that? Unless you make the argument that a person’s freedom only extends up to the point of not interfering with someone else’s freedom. So that clears the way for an okay on a ban on murder, say. By ending someone’s life, you’re interfering with their freedom.
But everything else isn’t related to freedom, it’s related to perceived morality. Hate speech is hateful, immoral, and wrong. But it’s not interfering with someone else’s freedom. Words can’t hurt.
…Until they can. Until words incite violence against a person. Until hate speech incites hate crimes.
In that case, is the hate speech to blame? Will banning hate speech prevent hate crimes?
It’s a rookie statistics mistake to assume banning hate speech will prevent hate crimes. Any high school stats teacher will tell you that just because hate speech and hate crimes are correlated, you can’t claim a causal relationship. You could make an equally legitimate argument that hate speech and hate crimes are both caused by some other variable(s). In that case, banning hate speech won’t stop hate crimes. You’re infringing on freedom and not doing anything to prevent infringement on others’ freedom.
But we want to reach for bans. It feels so good.
Editor’s note: this was written July 7. Since, then, things have gotten way more interesting thanks to the infamous Harper’s letter. Publishing this so I don’t leave drafts around, but more thoughts later…
>kria