The Harper's Letter: How are people split?

Using a global platform to complain about being silenced is ironic

Question: The Harper's Letter: How are people split?
Position‹2 of 3›: The Antis
Argument‹3 of 5›: Using a global platform to complain about being silenced is ironic

The irony of the Harper's letter is clear: over 150 artists with millions and millions of followers summated, airing their grievances of being "censored." Any suggestion that any criticism of their ideas has made them voiceless therefore smacks of pettiness.

The argument

The irony is in the statement: “The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation”. Venting on their repression, a group of elites on the world stage are somewhat undermining actual free speech advocacy. Nations around the world are implementing real infringements on the free speech of their citizens. In Egypt, individuals who speak on the issue of COVID 19 within the population are kidnapped and charged for “disseminating false news” and “inciting terrorist crime”. Not to mention, the numerous new security laws imposed against the will of the people in Hong Kong by China with some of the world's most effective censors. And these are just to name a few! Yet, a group of 150 elite artists in the United States have decided to take a stand via a global outlet to air their own beliefs on what censorship is, bringing up and equating this to ideas of canceled culture, in the eyes of millions who will read their raw, uncensored opinion.

Premises

[P1]Real restrictions on free speech involve state violence and censorship, as seen in Egypt's arrests of COVID commentators and China's security laws in Hong Kong. [P2] The Harper's Letter signatories are 150 elite artists who freely publish their uncensored views on a major global platform. [P3] Using such a platform to claim one is being silenced contradicts and trivializes the experience of those facing genuine repression. [C] Therefore, the Harper's Letter ironically undermines authentic free speech advocacy rather than advancing it.

Counter-arguments

The complaint of being silenced is not for an inability to deliver speech, but for fear that the consequences will be life-destroying. The signers are not complaining about the current state of affairs. They are expressing that they feel that with the way things are going and the evolving societal norms, there is a chance that eventually, they too will have the inability to exercise their right to free speech irrespective of their platforms!

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The complaint of being silenced doesn't include only the powerful signatories of the document, but anyone who isn't famous or powerful and could receive disproportionate backlash for their public speech.

Proponents cited

Lindsay Ellis
“I don't believe that all of the people who signed that Harper's letter are the flavor of rich white person who is mad they're getting dragged for bad Twitter opinions and calling that "cancel culture," but enough of them were that that is the message that's being elevated.”
Judd Legum
“The signatories of this letter have bigger platforms and more resources than most other humans. They are not being silenced in any way.”
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
“People who are actually “cancelled” don’t get their thoughts published and amplified in major outlets. This has been a public service announcement. The term “cancel culture” comes from entitlement - as though the person complaining has the right to a large, captive audience,& one is a victim if people choose to tune them out. Odds are you’re not actually cancelled, you’re just being challenged, held accountable, or unliked. Many of the people actually “cancelled” are those long denied a fair hearing of their ideas to begin w/: Palestinian human rights advocates, Abolitionists, Anti capitalists, Anti-imperialists. Not spicy “contrarians” who want to play devils advocate w/ your basic rights in the NYT”