Don't Like It? Don't Buy It

"[W]e care deeply about freedom of speech."

Thus spake 617 members of the 'writing, publishing, and broader literary community of the United States,' in their open letter calling for Penguin Random House to kill an upcoming book by Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

“I Had To Grow Extra Arms….”

I'm tempted to trot out Inigo Montoya's "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means" here, but this isn't an example of simple ignorance as to the meaning of "freedom of speech." No, these people know exactly what they're saying, and it echoes the sentiment of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern: ‘We must censor speech in order to keep it free.’

We are not talking about obscenity here. Nor about incitement, or intimidation, or libel, or false statements of fact, or speech owned by others, or commercial speech. Nor about contractual restrictions on the author, or other legitimate exceptions to free speech.

We are talking about a difference in political opinion, specifically about abortion rights. This difference isn't a massive majority against a few deranged outliers, either. It's a mainstream disagreement, with the Pew Research Center reporting a 60/40 split on the matter.

We are also talking about an author whose contribution to the public debate was voting that "it's not our job to decide this issue - it's a legislative matter," her personal beliefs aside. To reiterate, the Court did not ban abortion. It merely said, “the Constitution says nothing about it, so it’s a matter for lawmakers to sort out.” This isn't extremism, it's someone doing her job properly, showing restraint against authoritarian excess.

Are you shocked that people whose lives and livelihoods are based on sharing the written word are trying to gaslight us with their Orwellian doublethink?

You shouldn't be. These are shining stars of Cancel Culture, where it's not enough to personally reject someone's ideas or product. Cancelers want to deny you* the right to hear an opinion, see a show, read a book or otherwise have access to a product they dislike or disapprove. They've decided that you are incapable of coming to the correct conclusion as to a topic, so they must restrict your access to information and viewpoints.

I try to live-and-let-live as much as possible (life is easier when you ignore what others do with theirs, rather than scold them), but I have nothing but utter contempt for these people.

Do you remember the 51 intelligence experts who tried to discredit the Hunter laptop story? They were wrong, both to attempt to do so and in fact. They haven't mea culpa'd yet. Nor do I expect them to. Nor do I expect them to show restraint next time a politically inconvenient story drops. Inconvenient truth will continue to be subordinated to their arrogance.

Again, I despise, as much as that word can be applied to faceless strangers, those experts.

Don't like something? Don't buy it.

Really don't like it? Tell the world why. Make your case - you've as much right as the person you disagree with to voice your opinion to the world. If your case is compelling, I might join you in not buying.

But, please just stop with this "I'm going to stop you from seeing this, for your own good." You're NOT the good guy when you do this. You DON'T respect free speech.

YOU are the extremist you claim to decry.

---

Thank you for reading! If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), and  please recommend the blog to your friends. Social media has proven wholly unreliable in sharing my posts, subscribing is mightier than the shadow-banners, and subscriptions motivate my productivity.

If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon. I’ve started offering an expanded serialization of my short book, “End the War On Drugs,” every Sunday, for my paid subscribers.

Thank you, again, for your support!

Peter.