A Second look at the First Amendment
Freedom of expression is the foundation a free society. Though codified in our Constitution, protecting it requires our participation. (audio track included)
I have been graced with the ability to earn a decent living as a doctor in the US. Unlike some substack authors, I do not depend on paid subscriptions to pay my bills and feed my family. This allows me the freedom to write about whatever I wish.
At this time last year this publication had 1000 subscribers. Subscriptions have quintupled since. Paying subscribers now constitute about one in 70 here. As explained in the welcome email that gets sent to new subscribers, I appreciate but do not seek financial contributions. Whatever I receive I use to support other independent writers on this platform.
I also use your contributions to subscribe to authors whom I do not agree with. Many popular substack authors on both “sides” of the divide only allow comments from paid subscribers. I believe that a $5 dollar/month contribution to authors that I vehemently disagree with is a small price to pay to offer their readers a coherent counter argument to their positions.
A group of 23 multidisciplinary specialists writing under the handle “News from Those Nerdy Girls” here on substack caught my attention one year ago because they, like the extremely popular “Your Local Epidemiologist”, were explaining “the science” to the public during the pandemic. Those Nerdy Girls are “Your trusted messengers for practical and factual health information.”
I largely disagree with their take, and because they boast a readership of over 13,000, I chose to pay for a subscription to their newsletter so that I could offer constructive feedback when I wished.
They espouse many of the same values which I do. They explain on their page:
Values
Accessibility: We are committed to providing free and equitable access to health information.
Curiosity: We actively look for chances to learn and improve our knowledge about science, society, and the world around us.
Humility: We approach our work from a position of humility, always taking constructive feedback and striving to improve our work.
Impartiality: We strive to deliver our message without bias or inclination toward any specific group or political, religious, or other ideologies.
Collegiality: We strive to work with our “competitors,” not against them.
Empathy: We write from a position of empathy, always thinking carefully and considerately about what our readers are facing and feeling.
Equity: We are committed to lifting up the voices of women in science.
Respect: We respect all of our readers and never use a condescending tone. We treat each other with compassion and dignity at all times.
Multiple Perspectives: We value interdisciplinarity and different perspectives. We actively seek out opinions of others in different fields to help inform and improve our work.
They recently published an article titled, “How stable are conspiracy theory beliefs?”
In it, they highlight a study that approaches the incidence of “conspiracy theory” ideas in the collective empirically. Is it constant? Or is it subject to degradation over time?
Author of the article, Sara Gorman, a self-described “public health and behavioral science expert with experience writing about misinformation and science denial”concludes:
“This suggests that this kind of study needs to be repeated. In the meantime, we should check our beliefs that conspiracy thinking is a permanent phenomenon and start to entertain the notion that these ideas could be more fluid than we thought. If this is the case, it opens up the possibility of more successful interventions to change conspiracy thinking. If we can understand when and how conspiracy beliefs tend to change, we can target interventions to help people transition away from these beliefs at times when their thought patterns are prone to change. This would be a great boon to our efforts to promote rational, evidence-based thinking across the population.”
Inherent in her argument is the axiom that beliefs in conspiracies run counter to “rational, evidence-based thinking”. Given the now voluminous evidence of conspiracies, from the JFK assassination to 9/11 and the control of our medical regulatory agencies and media by the vastly powerful Pharma complex, it’s laughable to diagnose “conspiracy theorists” with an ailment that can be studied epidemiologically or, according to Gorman, cured. “Rational, evidence-based thinking” actually leads directly to very real conspiracies. That’s my opinion.
What exactly are these “interventions” that can be used at the right time and place to rid us of this scourge and as Gorman writes, “help people transition away from these beliefs…”?
Of course, I felt compelled to comment. Here’s what happened:
I immediately took this screen shot from my phone. My written comment was not recorded. I don’t have any record of what may have triggered this response from the authors who claim to “actively seek out opinions of others in different fields to help inform and improve” their work.
It must have been from one of my comments on a previous post of theirs. I have only commented once or twice before. Those comments have been taken down as well, so I honestly have no idea what motivated them to assume this posture.
I can assure you that nothing in the comment above (or in any other of my comments) was polemic or unfair. I offered a suggestion: to pause and consider what assumptions they are making. Is that ever bad advice?
Those Nerdy Girls can write what ever they wish. I have no desire to muzzle opinions which I disagree with. The substack platform also allows us writers to “ban” any subscriber from commenting on a post, for a length of time of our choosing. They certainly have that right, even against a paying subscriber like me.
I looked at this feature this morning for the first time. I didn’t see a “100 years from now” option. Perhaps this is was customized for me alone? How gratifying.
The “100 year” ban is amusing. It’s effectively a life sentence for me. Paid subscribers, they assured, can leave comments on their articles. For the record, that’s why I purchased a subscription—not to help keep their lights on. I must have broken an unwritten rule of theirs. A rule so sacred that no further explanation is warranted.
I don’t take it personally, but it does have some unfortunate consequences. Their substantial readership are certainly aware that responses to their essays are drawn only from those who contribute materially to their publication. However how would they know that the authors actively filter out comments for unknown reasons?
Whether intentional or not, by touting their commitment to “curiosity, impartiality, humility, respect and multiple perspectives” but quietly excising certain responses from the conversation those Nerdy Girls are being disingenuous and deceptive. Their readers are unknowingly part of an echo chamber in which dissenting opinion is assumed not to exist.
With no room for dissent, echo chambers have no self-correcting mechanism. It’s a recipe for disaster which is playing out on a much grander scale at this moment.
I have no intention of ever limiting comments to only paid subscribers here. Indeed, while many authors judge their success by their revenue and use this perk to boost paid subscriptions, I judge mine by the number of comments which are left on my posts — thank you for all of yours. Discussion is the only way to penetrate echo chambers and mitigate tribalism.
I have always welcomed contrarian opinions, whether rational or not, in the comment section. It’s simple. If the criticism is valid, it will help me. If the criticism is unfair it will fall on deaf ears and more than likely highlight its deficiencies on its own. This is precisely why scientific consensus is considered credible. It is assumed to have endured attacks from all angles before it is accepted as the working theory.
I have complete confidence that readers here have the capacity to separate bunk and personally motivated attacks from legitimate criticism. This capacity is necessary for free expression to flourish. I believe our founding fathers were aware of this as they crafted the parameters of the experiment in self-governance we call America.
Freedom of expression is not just a gift, it carries with it serious responsibilities which are borne by individuals and NOT authorities. We are often too quick to place the responsibility upon the transmitter of information and not the recipients of it. By doing so we open the door for an authority to step in and hold the transmitter accountable. This also is a recipe for disaster.
Hate speech cannot be tolerated.
Rhetoric that incites violence against groups must be banned.
At first glance, this all seems extremely reasonable. But who exactly decides what is “hate speech”? On what grounds is rhetoric judged inciting? Who makes the rules? What happens if there is disagreement around them?
I concede that when pushed to the extremes, legitimate arguments for limitations on Free Speech exist. However we must approach these boundary cases very carefully as they can be precipices from which we can quickly plummet into a security state.
For example, bans on hate speech and inciting rhetoric has expanded to include disinformation now. Who determines what disinformation is? Here’s the Department of Homeland Security’s definition of disinformation:
Disinformation is deliberately created to mislead, harm, or manipulate a person, social group, organization, or country.
Great. But what the hell is it? Our own Department of Homeland Security considers disinformation to pose an ongoing threat to the nation without ever defining what it is.
The irony. The cabinet department that is charged with protecting our freedom has carte blanche to go after whomever they want to whenever they wish based on whatever they choose.
This isn’t much different from what Those Nerdy Girls are doing by quietly censoring certain opinions while simultaneously promoting themselves as “trusted messengers for practical and factual health information” and touting their respect for multiple perspectives.
We still have not emerged from four years of watching legitimate opinions and concerns get scrubbed, with devastating efficiency, from all the big platforms. We may never will.
You cannot yell “FIRE!” in a movie theater.
What happens if you smell smoke in a theater and warn everyone to get out in case a fire erupts? What happens to you if nothing more than overcooked popcorn is found in the concession stand in the lobby? Are you at fault because you overstepped your first Amendment rights?
I am smelling a lot of smoke right now. The real question is how much of this edifice we call a free society is ablaze.
Dear Nerdy Girls, I respectfully, impartially, collegially, empathetically and with humility suggest that you consider all perspectives before advising your readership to ignore the smoke detectors that have been going off. Shouldn’t we first confirm that the iron isn’t on before we deactivate them?
It’s my hope that one of you or your followers will leave a comment here. You don’t have to buy a subscription, and you don’t have to be nice.
“Conspiracy thinking” is not going to be eradicated like a disease. It’s actually an immune response which is growing in strength. Try as you might, you aren’t going to be able to force people to unsmell smoke when fires are burning. It’s not only folly to think that this is possible, if efforts to do this are enacted, it is a pretty good sign that we have stepped off the precipice already.
I cancelled my paid subscription to "News from Those Nerdy Girls" this morning. Substack allows one to explain the reasons to the authors. Here it is:
"Dear Nerdy Girls authors, you have banned me from leaving comments on your articles. Though I left comments critical of your approach to certain topics, they were respectful and were offered in a spirit to encourage dialogue. The "100 year ban" was initiated without any warning or explanation from you.
Not only have you misrepresented the benefits of a paid subscription to your publication, it runs counter to the values you espouse on your page. You have every right to do as you please, but what you are doing here is emblematic of a much bigger systemic problem: dissenting opinions are removed from conversation and people arrive at the false sense of consensus. This is antithetical to all scientific pursuits.
I am a physician and an engineer. I too am a substack author and have recently written about your latest post and the ban you have imposed. I encourage you to comment on it. Doing so will also allow you to address those who disagree with you; it's an opportunity to communicate with what should be your target audience.
You don't have to pay to leave a comment on any of my content. I am committed to invite all dissenting voices without insisting on a fees of any kind.
Sincerely,
Madhava Setty, MD"
"A group of 23 multidisciplinary specialists"
A contradiction in terms if I ever saw one. You're either a 'specialist' or a 'generalist.' There's nothing in between.
As for conspiracy theories, how can you tell the difference between an unfounded or a legitimate belief unless you investigate the actual subject of the belief, and to do that would require a much larger, much better qualified group of researchers than a bunch of self-aggrandizing "nerdy girls."
To me, this is emblematic of how far the social sciences have fallen in the last few decades. To even call it science is an insult to actual scientists.