The signatories want to cancel 'cancel culture' and can't deal with the open debate they seek to foster. The letter is a demand for public figures to be able to say whatever they want to, hold unpalatable views, and incite hatred without being held accountable.
The argument
Inherent in the right to free speech is the right to critique the speech of others. The phrase "freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is often used to clarify that the fundamental right to free speech does not mean automatic exemption from social consequences. The inclusion of controversial figures such as J.K. Rowling, Margaret Atwood, or Noam Chomsky on the list of signatories makes the letter feel like a spiteful response to those social consequences, rather than an objective or impassioned defense to uphold democracy. Considering those involved, the letter does not read as an objective statement, but rather an attempt at vindication for those who believe they have been unjustly “punished” by society. The letter’s original author, Thomas Chatterton Williams, intended to critique recent public reprimands such as the firing of David Shor or the resigning of the entire Poetry Foundation Board, but the lack of specific examples in this open letter along with the presence of controversial figures means that legitimate judgments get lost in the ethical and philosophical confusion. Cancel culture has become a phrase so “hazy and incendiary that is broadly applied and often used defensively, the way someone might describe an article they don’t like as ‘clickbait,’ simply to dismiss it.” Using it as the basis for open debate in a public forum feels like a murky way to make meaningful democratic strides, which is the letter’s proclaimed intent.
Premises
Counter-arguments
In writing this letter, the signatories were, in fact, exercising free speech to respond to a perceived societal injustice. The outraged response to the letter may prove its point that people today get so caught up in “moral attitudes” that the overall goal of defeating democratic threats gets overshadowed.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The maxim is true but will not carry the weight placed on it. "Consequences" covers everything from criticism to dismissal to organised campaigns against a livelihood, and the letter's complaint concerns the far end of that range. Treating the whole range as equivalent settles the disagreement by definition rather than by argument. [Rejecting P2] Who signed is not an argument about what was signed. The premise infers the letter's motive from a handful of names among more than 150 signatories who differ widely in politics and circumstance, so no shared grievance can be read off the list — Chomsky in particular has spent decades defending speech he opposes. [Rejecting P3] "Spiteful" is a claim about intent that the premises cannot reach, and the argument's own best observation cuts the other way: it concedes that the letter's author meant to address specific cases such as the David Shor dismissal, which is a substantive grievance rather than self-protection. Faulting the letter for offering no examples is a fair criticism of its drafting, not evidence that its signatories oppose criticism of themselves.