The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Free Speech and the War in Ukraine," from the National Coalition Against Censorship
A generally quite sound analysis, I think (links included from a version of the page that NCAC sent by e-mail):
In times of war, free speech suffers. Right and wrong appear indisputable. There is moral certainty that "God is on our side." …
The war between Russia and Ukraine is the latest test of our commitment to free speech…. [M]ajor cultural players in the US and Europe are canceling Russian artists, performers and anything else coming from Russia.
Cultural boycotts have mostly symbolic goals aimed at a Western audience. Any practical effect on Russia itself is hard to conceive. Artist cancellations will not further squeeze Russia financially. Russia lives on the export of oil and gas, not art. And the message of Western disapproval only entrenches Putin's domestic narrative of a hostile West.
Cultural institutions in the US and Europe have the right, of course, to express their symbolic opposition to the war by blacklisting Russian artists. However, they must consider the full implications.
Today's cultural institutions are full of artists and performers from countries across the globe. Should all these artists be held responsible for the misdeeds of their political leaders? Should they be asked to publicly condemn these leaders when doing so puts them and members of their family at risk of retaliation by their governments?
Banning Russian artists based on their political views or, worse, solely because of their nationality, while welcoming artists from China and other repressive regimes undermines any moral high ground an institution can claim.
The people of a nation are not identical with its leadership and should not be equated with it. On the contrary, they can be allies in opposing a repressive regime from within. Among the Russian artists blacklisted today are people who have been critical of the war.
US institutions have so far limited their action to artists who refuse to condemn the regime, the more restrained path still fraught with questions likely to haunt these institutions for a long time. Blacklisting artists based solely on their political views is a tactic associated with the Cold War and the McCarthy era. That era also demanded "loyalty oaths"—similar to current demands on artists to denounce the Putin regime or be canceled. Only this time artists are also asked to face risks in their home country by making such denunciations….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The vast majority of Russians and Russian-speakers should not be "cancelled," no.
But there are some high-profile artists who have unapologetically and opportunistically embraced Putin and Putinism in apparent furtherance of their personal careers. Gergiev and, to a lesser extent, Netrebko come to mind. To the extent that artists are personally complicit in a regime that is now engaging in war crimes in Ukraine, it is appropriate to part ways with them.
In a similar fashion, I would eschew any association with former members of the Trump administration.
What about the Bush administration in which George W Bush stole the 2000 election and lied us into an asinine war all the while selling us out to China??
Conveniently, there was a lot of overlap between the two administrations.
We didn’t hemorrhage jobs to China under Clinton—the late 1990s were very good for Detroit and manufacturing in America although most people don’t remember oil prices were an issue in the 2000 election. And under Bush we would go on to have an energy crisis which undermined our energy intensive consumer spending economy. The difference than with today is that natural gas prices aren’t at record highs along with oil like in 2007/08. So we have increased natural gas production and LNG exports in 2021.
Why don't you go get a room with the cyberstalking guy and Behar and let people who have more than a one track mind have a conversation?
David. All woke must be cancelled. Because all woke is case, all lawyer hierarchy must be cancelled. Zero tolerance for woke and for the lawyer hierarchy.
A database should be started. The lawyer hierarchy on this database should be forcefully expelled from the supermarket without their groceries, using facial recognition technology. They should be shunned by all Americans.
Why does the lawyer Putin get to try to assassinate the President of Ukraine a dozen times, and the lawyer is protecting him in this country? Shouldn't there be a drone strike on his location every hour of the day to rid the world of this vile, toxic lawyer?
Russia prof talks regime change by the inside of the oiligarchy.
https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Is-Putin-coup-proof-That-depends-on-how-much-16991229.php
1) You're a broken record on this "extension" of the truth.
2) It is whataboutism regarding what one should do right now
We shouldn’t cancel anyone because people like me were cancelled in the early 2000s and I was right about everything. You should listen to people and not shout them down like I was in 2002/03.
Why were you cancelled? Were you accused of ritual sex abuse of babies by the lawyer profession?
You were really cancelled? In what way? You should tell us what created the scars.
I think you're wrong about many things, But I don't "demand" that you be fired: I don't even mute your posts. Likewise I expect you to tolerate my disagreements with you.
People like me were called “traitor”. Remember email chains in 2002?? I was kicked off email chains and I didn’t get a job because the interviewer inexplicably asked me my views on invading Iraq in 2002/03 and the interview got weirder and weirder. Very strange times in light of how asinine invading Iraq was and how asinine Assghanistan turned out to be.
That you did not get the job is not really being cancelled. The interviewer might have been an asshole, but then you might just have failed the stress interview and are making an excuse for yourself. Who knows? You have your opinion of course.
If you were being interviewed in NY, you might have noticed that feelings were running pretty high.
As for email chains, I don't remember those, but I can believe that you and others were kicked off were kicked off.
Sebastian. I remember a fervent editorial against invading Iraq by the National Security Adviser of George Bush Sr. You were not alone.
“in which George W Bush stole the 2000 election”
I’m no fan of Bush but only a clown would believe a fable this far removed from reality.
Gore attempted to steal an election by changing the rules post election to enable selective recounts. His villainy was check-mated. Good won out over evil. You, for the record, are spokesman for the side of evil in this particular instance.
Another way to look at 2000 is a plurality of Florida's voters left the booths thinking they voted for Gore. So while I agree selected recounts were wrong, I wouldn't say frustrating the will of the voters is an example of good winning over evil.
Gore didn’t do “selected recounts” because any time Bush called for a statewide recount Gore obviously would have accepted it. Gore’s girl was always a statewide recount while Harris’ goal was to drag her feet and run out the clock. 2020 shows everyone support recounts and the people that opposed them in 2000 did so out of political expediency.
Gore initially asked for recounts only in Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, Broward and Volusia counties.
Nope, he initially wanted a statewide recount. Brainiac—do you really believe Gore would have attempted to stop a statewide recount?? Tell me, if a statewide recount occurred what would be the downside for Bush?
Your memory about this issue is warped, but no matter. Past is passed. Live with it.
From Bush v. Gore:
No. He did not. We know that, because he had the opportunity to ask for a statewide recount and did not do so.
He refused to start one, so yes. (And contrary to your loony ravings, Harris had no authority to just order one. It had to be requested by a candidate.)
In one county, ballots printed were horribly-aligned punch ballots, and Pat Buchanan got 18,000 more votes than statistically he should have. This was because Gore and Buchanan were on opposite sides of the punch hole column down the middle, and it was easy to punch the wrong hole.
This wasn't nefarious as Democrats made the ballot, but clearly it would have put Gore over the top with any other voting method.
The problem is you can't reassign the votes, nore re-do it.
And, as mentioned, you cannot change the counting rules after the election to make your guy win (while sticking your tongue in your cheek and claiming otherwise.
Also, you cannot just recount two counties Gore was heavily ahead in because recounts yield more votes for both candidates, and in a county where Gore was ahead, say 70%/30%, and they picked up another hundred votes, that's 70 Gore 30 Bush, i.e. Gore gains 40 on statewide total.
This may be a bit confusing, but the lawyers and power hungry are well aware of it.
You can put the butterfly ballot aside, and Gore still wins on the overvotes. Someone fills in Gore's name as a write in, and also checks Gore's box. The initial vote counts threw ballots like that out, calling them ambiguous overvotes. That is election-count malpractice. It was when it was realized that Gore would win if correcting that was featured in a recount, that the Supreme Court weighed in to stop the counting.
I agree you can't reassign those votes. But their existence shows a plurality of voters thought they voted for Gore. Thus, the conclusion evil wins had Gore prevailed in the recounts is nonsense.
In cases where there is an alternative, I chose long ago to not purchase from Communist China, Russia, or other dictatorships, or from companies who support such regimes.
Does that somehow mean I oppose free speech?
I think not.
I agree. And telling the Bolshoi, for example, that we don't want to pay money to watch them because of what their country is doing seems completely appropriate. It gets a little more personal when you cancel the performance of an individual artist, who certainly has no control over what Putin is doing. But it sends a message about how strongly the public here feels about this vicious attack. And maybe the Russian public, which has more limited access to unbiased media reports, needs to know that's the case.
Isn’t cancelling or refusing to do business with artists due to their nationality/national origin a form of unlawful discrimination under several state anti discrimination laws?
Right.
It's the funniest thing, watching stout defenders of anti-discrimination laws try to carve out a special exemption for BDS-inspired discrimination against Israelis. ("Discrimination is bad. But not against people we dislike!")
well you could always hide behind the issues with banking as there will be significant difficulties in paying anyone based in Russia
I think if you could prove that a business subject to antidiscrimination laws based the decision on protected status rather than action you would have a case. Wearing a "Z" in support of Russia is less protected against private action than being from Russia.
I can't refuse to sell you a muffin from my shop because you are a black queer Muslim immigrant. I can refuse to sell you a muffin because you are unwilling to state that all black queer Muslim immigrants should be deported. (Maybe not in California.)
You can certainly cancel a performance if you have reason to believe nobody is going to come and the promoters will lose money by putting it on, even if the reason nobody will attend is that the performer is Russian. And that may be a realistic concern under current circumstances.
“The people of a nation are not identical with its leadership and should not be equated with it.”
Unless that leader is Trump. Then everyone not acting vigorously against the leadership are Nazi Racists, and should be shunned, canceled, targeted, etc.
“ Then everyone not acting vigorously against the leadership are Nazi Racists”
Except that everyone acting vigorously against Trump’s leadership are globalist Bolshevik/ minoritarian Red Terrorists and murderers against whom all decent people should be united in opposition.
This comes right back to abandoning freedom of association. Calling it censorship is a cheap trick.
Even from a practical point, this is ridiculous. What's the alternative to individuals exercising freedom of association and choice -- war decided by government?
Much better to have bigots and sunshine patriots showing their choices in public than a government forcing such choices.
It also highlights differences between asinine western political echo chamber hyperbole decrying those hellbound dupes in the other party, and actually supporting Hitlerian invasions of other countries.
When there are no serious problems, lesser ones rise up to be stimulated to outrage by politicians, and then lesser still.
"What this country needs is a good war", to remind people of real problems.
(Carefully thought out wording) Here ya go, assholes!
"Any practical effect on Russia itself is hard to conceive. [...] [Virtue-signaling zealots] have the right, of course, to express their symbolic opposition to the war by blacklisting Russian artists. However, they must consider the full implications."
Much of the current warfare -- censorship and economic sanctions alike -- seems childishly self-defeating, almost to the degree of a Guiana-esque religious suicide pact. For example, as we ban oil purchases from Russia, Russia bans nickel sales to us, with the result being our own shortage of two critical components of the energy economy and an increase in the availability of resources to our adversaries. But we sure showed them there Ruskies something?!
"It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on."
Referencing select portions of that same text, "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. [...] Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished. [...] When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions. [...] Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy's provisions is equivalent to twenty of one's own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one's own store. [...] In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns."
So far, our response has been childish, yet typically "blue." Telling Putin that he is naughty is as effective as telling an essential worker that you will not allow him to produce the food you require unless he injects a magic potion you mandate.
"If you fail to follow my dictate, I will hold my breath until I turn blue." Childish! But then what does victory look like in the current circumstance? Childish?!
So what do you suggest beside economic restrictions?
A drone strike from the Ukraine on Putin and on each of the 20 oiligarchs keeping him in power. Any Russian general object, drone him too.
Better yet why don’t you relocate to Ukraine and volunteer? Buy your own drone if you must. Maybe Hunter Biden can loan you some of his son-of-American-politician winnings?? Just leave the rest of us out of your drama.
Curle. You upset about something?
I am considering taking the drone pilot course, and getting an FAA Part 107 drone license.
The best quote I've seen was from an article yesterday contrasting Biden's infrastructure bill with the Russian sanctions.
Forcing Americans to buy only American products will somehow be good for the American economy. But forcing Russians to buy only Russian goods will put pressure on (that is, be bad for) the Russian economy.
Entirely separate from either international trade policies or the degree of pure or impure motives of the parties involved, your comment should note one additional relevant factor.
Most products Americans want, can be made in America; while a very substantial portion of products Russians want, cannot be made in (especially, a sanctioned) Russia.
I don't think Putin's attempt to turn Russia into North Korea is going to turn out as well for him as he thinks.
The US is the only big country that, with pain, could approach autarchy.
Less pain than many suspect, since the primary step in moving towards self-sufficiency is just removing regulatory obstacles to doing things here.
There's a reason the kleptocrats keep their personal money in western banks:
1. It's hard western cash, useful to buy all the goodies you want, which don't come from your hobbled country.
2. Safe from other kleptocrats.
As Purple Martin notes, that's a pretty dumb quote. The Russian economy basically works like this: export a massive amount of raw materials, import finished goods. Importantly, they're also a net importer of food and are very dependent on foreign sources for almost all types of food except for grain.
The US is deeply entangled in the world economy and it would be painful to detach, but Russia is simply not capable of any meaningful degree of economic self-sufficiency.
There is an issue here:
Some artists may be refraining from criticism because they support the regime, others may be refraining out of fear of consequences to themselves or their families or other reasons.
A more appropriate course it would seems to me to be to cancel those who express support, book those who express criticism and carefully consider others on reputation, merit and careful consideration.
But that would seriously limit opportunities to virtue signal. How would we be able to recognize the virtuous among us unless they signal?
My God!
Are you actually asking woke people to exercise judgement rather than follow the twitter mobs?
You callous brute!!
I respectfully dissent.
There are repressive regimes with whom we do business, with whom we associate with, with whom we engage in cultural exchanges. But this situation is different.
After WWII the nations of the world agreed that no longer would a nation engage in warfare to invade and conquer another nation for the purpose of gaining control and/or territory for the agressor. That principle is sacrosanct, and indeed must be supported in a world with nuclear weapons.
Russia has chosen to violate that principal, and in doing so has withdrawn from the community of nations. The message must be sent by actions that in now way can the rest of the world acknowledge Russia as a nation, as a participant in world affairs, as a country who in any manner should interact with other nations.
We cannot end the existence of Russia, no should we attempt to do so. But we can and should recognize that Russia has expelled itself from our world, and we should start to implement all withdrawal of contact, trade or recognition. This will take time and it will be costly, but to decline to do so invites the world to return to the late 1930's, and in that case annihilation becomes not just a possibility but a probability.
Yes, there will be collateral damage to decent, ordinary Russians, just as there was collateral damage to law abiding, peace loving citizens of Japan and Germany in WWII. But that is the lesser of the evils, the greater being a world brought to the point of destruction.
You say we “…no longer would a nation engage in warfare to invade and conquer another nation for the purpose of gaining control and/or territory for the agressor.” And “Russia has chosen to violate that principal.” But have they?
What territory are they seeking to gain control over? Even Russia’s own conditions for ending the war do no involve controlling territory gained through this act of aggression. They list these:
1. Ukraine agrees to sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO,
2. recognized Crimea as Russian,
3. recognized the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk as independent, and
4. ceased all military action.
Say what you will about these demands, they do not recognize any control of territory gained by this act of aggression.
Requiring another nation to assert neutrality against its wishes strikes me as within the gambit of "gaining control of territory." So to does requiring a nation to cede land against its wishes by invading another part of the nation.
LOL. That's some serious Neville Chamberlain brainpower right there.
"What territory are they seeking to gain control over?"
See items 2 and 3 in your list. Sheesh.
"Gained through this act of aggression." Crimea maybe falls outside, though it was taken through military force earlier, but the Luhansk and Donetsk regions were very much militarily disputed prior to the full scale invasion.
Your post is nonsensical. Russia is attempting to take us back to the pre-WWII world (which leads inexorably to WWIII). No.
Well said.
Let's not have a redux of "Freedom Fries" and similar ineffective performative nonsense.
I was called a “traitor”…it was a very bad time in America that I will never forget!
Dunno, man. You seem like a good guy, but from a statement upthread it appears you may have falsely claimed that an election had been stolen and perhaps even went around online rabble rousing on that claim. I believe it's well established that that's seditious conspiracy, and "traitor" is common shorthand for those who (allegedly) engaged in it.
Wrong, you are being seditious attempting to stifle free speech. Jackson was correct that the Founding Pussies/Deep State stole the 1824 election and Trump is wrong but he is free to make the claim the 2020 election was stolen.
Banning even pro-Putin speech seems problematic. Rather than restrict the expressions of artists or athletes wouldn't a better solution simply be to only have sanctions via cash flow ? Simply make it a crime to remit taxes to Russia during this period. You can choose to perform or play on the world stage. It is simply criminal to remit any of that income to Putin's regime. If you do so and come to the US and we prosecute you.
That would give the individual artists or athletes the choice. Who do you want to support and pay taxes to ? Someone is going to be unhappy with you, choose who. If they choose to support Putin with words but not cash, give everyone else the freedom to ignore them or not. Governments should not be making moral content decisions.
No one is talking about banning speech. During WWII there was plenty of speech that was pro-axis (and anti U. S. and Anti Jewish) We learned the lesson of free speech when we imprisoned people in WWI and the Blacklists post WWII.
What we are talking about is whether or not we let Russia participate in the community of nations as though they had not broken the prime directive of our time, no starting a war to conquer territory. And no government, no non Russian private company or individual should interact with Russia, they have cast themselves out of the world of nations.
"No one is talking about banning speech."
Really. Two days ago I got this request (as an editor) from the Ukrainian Physical Society ( quote in part:
"Now, we appeal to the European and global physical community: the official scientific institutions of the Russian Federation, in particular, its leading universities and the Russian Academy of Sciences bearing their own share of responsibility for the policy of the evil empire of President Putin, are subject to an unconditional boycott. We urge that researchers with an affiliation of such institutions not be admitted to international grant teams, not be invited to international conferences, and not be published in leading international scientific journals."
Despite the revulsion over the actions of Mr Putin and his army, we will continue to publish the work of Russian authors contingent on positive peer reviews until such action i prohibit by legal sanctions of the US, UK, and EU. That has been the case in the past with regard to papers from Iran.
Of course we respect the decision of any invited reviewer to decline to review a paper from a Russian institution.
Thank you for continuing to publish.
Whether organized for-profit or non-profit, the cultural institutions the author refers to cater to their audiences whose willingness to patronize the institution depends strongly on whether they approve or disapprove of the choices it makes. It is inconceivable that a cultural institution with any track record of success wouldn't filter every invitation or dis-invitation they issue by how they anticipate their audience will react. Those reactions are the "full implications" they care about. I wouldn't expect them to act against their audience's expectations than I would expect NCAC to publish a pro-censorship article.
This mania by left leaning cultural organizations is the fruit of 5+ years of Russia! and Putin! hysteria by the left.
My sympathies for the left wing National Coalition Against Censorship is very limited as a result.
"The National Coalition Against Censorship was formed by a group of activists affiliated with the ACLU in response to the 1973 Supreme Court decision ... an alliance of more than 50 national non-profits, including literary, artistic, religious, educational, professional, labor, and civil liberties groups"
.Were you always this disaffected, Bob from Ohio, or has your disdain for modern America intensified over time?
Just a view from the sidelines, but Bob's disaffection seems to have intensified proportional to the progress of modernity.
Meanwhile, in Wales:
"In light of the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, Cardiff Philharmonic Orchestra, with the agreement of St. David's Hall, feel the previously advertised programme including the 1812 Overture to be inappropriate at this time."
https://www.cardiffphilharmonic.com/future-concerts
One wonders how much thought actually goes into such decisions. Is it just empty virtue signalling? Or do they think such an action would actually impact someone in a positive way?
As long as the orchestra will substitute the piece with wellington's Victory celebrating another defeat of the French, I am okay with it.
Have you ever listened to Wellington's Victory? Not one of lovely Ludwig van's best. In fact, it sucks big time.
Actually I have and it pales against the 1812 Overture
Wellington's Victory - notes for dough.
Pure virtue signaling that accomplishes nothing.
The 1812 Overture is a patriotic piece commemorating the Russian defeat of Napoleon, complete with the firing of cannon. It is perhaps inappropriate to paly at this itme.
I know very much what it means. It celebrates the defeat of an invading army
"It celebrates the defeat of an invading army"
It celebrates a Russian victory.
Against an invading French army.
As I said pointless virtue signaling
Seems to me that the 1812 Overture sends the RIGHT message -- that those who launch aggressive and unjustified invasions of foreign countries should be defeated. In that war the Russians were not the aggressors. Playing the piece makes clear the point we should be making: that we are not against the Russian people, but only against the Russian leader who has launched his country into an aggressive and unjustified war.
Funny how banning Russian oil leads to a "need" to throw more money at other dictators rather than unleash the US energy sector.
Is Biden pushing business to those totalitarian regimes in exchange for more ideas on how to do here what they did there?
https://www.wisn.com/article/russian-ballet-theater-receiving-online-backlash-ahead-of-milwaukee-show/39304513#
Wife went to this performance. She said there was added security but no protesters. Funny thing is that the end of the news story says the group had no plans to change the name of the touring company (where "Russian Ballet" refers to the kind of dance), yet at the show, they announced the rebranding to "RBT" and used new logos, etc.
Compare and contrast, two of the greatest figures of early-mid-20th century film: Leni Riefenstahl and Marlene Dietrich. To what does each owe her greatness? On what political basis might their careers be distinguished?
A 2015 New Yorker article has already done that comparison, by the way. Something I did not know before it occurred to me to suggest it. I looked up each of them, to be sure I remembered right, and my Google search brought up, "Bombshells
How Marlene Dietrich and Leni Riefenstahl divided a world between them" — an article by Claudia Roth Pierpont.
I don't suggest the article puts to rest any issues raised by the OP, but it offers food for thought.
"Compare and contrast, two of the greatest figures of early-mid-20th century film: Leni Riefenstahl and Marlene Dietich. To what does each owe her greatness? On what political basis might their careers be distinguished?"
An excellent topic for an impromptu writing assignment.
What next? Renaming Russian dressing?
Like renaming French Fries "Freedom Fries"?
Precisely.
This barb lacks bite as no one on the left has proposed as stupid an idea as that adopted by Republicans in Congress with the whole "Freedom Fries". Everyone should maybe consider what that says about "liberals" versus "Republicans". Both have some authoritarian fringes. But only one of the two broad groups is stupid enough (or sufficiently captured by their stupid wing) to try to rename food.
And what country to France invade to cause that particular tantrum?
It's time to start treating leftist speech as treason, and punish it accordingly. It was clearly intended to be outside the protection of the 1st Amendment. I'm tired of woke CEOs like Disney's whining about LGBTQ+ bills, even though the bills are nothing of the sort.
These are the bigots this white, male, right-wing blog attracts.
The Volokh Conspiracy's aim was to make movement conservatism more palatable or popular among a broader audience; the result it appears to have precipitated is to make strong law schools less likely to emulate fourth-tier schools by hiring movement conservatives for faculty positions.
Outside firing them for specific non-national origin based conduct (positive affirmation of Putin, etc) wouldn't firing someone simply because they are ethnically Russian violate Title VII of Civil Rights Act?
Yes.
People can be so easily manipulated by globalist propaganda and indoctrination. Research what actually happened in the Ukraine in 2014. Kissinger said that the Ukraine is Russia, historically speaking. Freeze the bank accounts of Canadians over COVID, now freeze the bank accounts of Russians over Putin. When should we freeze your bank account? Never let a crisis go to waste, as the globalists say. The Ukraine is a puppet state of the U.S. How would the U.S. feel if Russia had bio-terrorist labs in Mexico (the U.S. has them in the Ukraine), or if China conducted war games in Canada (Trudeau allowed this, until he was reigned in AGAIN by his globalist masters). We should be more concerned about the semblance of a globalist take-over in Western societies.
Seriously, we could read Pravda if we wanted Putin's idiocy.