It has recently come to my attention – by which I mean, has annoyingly re-entered my consciousness for the umpteenth time and reminded me how absurd everything is – that our workplaces are not nearly as accepting of people who have personalities that are seen as “less appealing.” And ridiculously, this happens way too much in my field of work: education.

At first glance, it might seem that I mean we should be defending people who have a “difference of opinion” when it comes to talking about people of different races, cultures, religions, genders, etc., but I’m not. Those people are typically the bigots who, honestly, either need to learn that you cannot have opinions on whether or not someone is human or go away or be fired.

What I’m talking about is the continued hyper-focus on characteristics that are particular to extroversion, the lack of consideration for individuals with social anxieties and any range of mental illnesses, the lack of inclusion of people who have hidden disabilities and learning disorders, and the perpetual myth that we are inherently responsible for “feeling excluded” because we “haven’t tried hard enough.”

In a conversation with another colleague, I was made aware that my exclusion from the team was the result of things that were largely my fault and that “people who do not know me should not be expected to include me.”

In this discussion, she stated that I:

  • did not actively make attempts to engage groups of people;

  • did not appear noticeably interested or engaged with conversations or things that people would talk about;

  • did not take the initiative to attend after-hours get-togethers that were planned by other teachers and posted in a group on WhatsApp;

  • did not actively seek out a particular teacher who may have been helpful for a particular situation.

For the record, all of this was said to me by a teacher. I find that disheartening, especially since we’re supposed to be in the profession of teaching our students inclusion, but our own staff can’t even do it on a superficial level.

Anyway, all of these are things that I can see, from another perspective or entirely in a vacuum, as being true to an extent. They are also things that have correlating responses that were never considered at any point in our time working together. Here are responses that I had in general terms:

  • Did that group of people ever think to actively engage the individual people who felt excluded in any way? If not, why?

  • Did they consider that someone could be uncomfortable with spontaneously approaching a group of people? If not, why?

  • Were they aware of how social anxiety can negatively impact the way a person thinks or perceives group dynamics? If not, why?

  • Did their body language show that they were willing to include someone? Or did it show that they were happier building walls and discouraging others from engaging with them?

  • Were they aware that language learners needed context and that conducting conversations entirely in a language other than the common language of the workplace would require more work, such as providing context (which promotes learning of the other language)? If not, why? [Example: In an international school where the common language is English but the local language is Italian, not all teachers will be immediately fluent in the local language and will require context clues to be included.]

  • If groups on WhatsApp were created to plan after-hours get-togethers, did you ensure that all teachers were included within a reasonable time (days, not months)? If not, why?

  • Were the get-togethers diverse in interest? Or were they all the same activities, meaning that people who don’t feel comfortable in those environments for any reason are still excluded? [Example: If you constantly are planning things for bars where drinking is happening, you’re going to alienate non-drinkers, anyone who is uncomfortable with drinking, or recovering addicts.]

  • Did they ever make attempts to check-in on people at any point throughout the year? If not, why?

  • When asked for assistance by the ‘excluded individuals’ (who were simultaneously told to ‘seek out relevant people’ and made attempts to do so), did they actively make attempts to help them in any way at all? If not, why?

Now, in a work environment, I do not consider it the responsibility of the staff to take charge of building the community. I do consider it their responsibility to ensure that they are supporting and perpetuating systems that actively encourage inclusion, but it is by no means their responsibility to ensure that ‘team-building’ happens.

I consider that to be the responsibility of management. That isn’t to say that management needs to monitor and develop my friendships with my colleagues, but they need to provide numerous opportunities to ensure that every member on the staff feels at least somewhat comfortable with the others. This could be through optional weekend excursions to somewhere relevant (and, as a teacher, almost everywhere is relevant to my job); it could be through having two or three teachers with particular skills work together on developing a workshop for the others, showcasing another way of doing something. They could also ensure that the programs we develop for our performance days are more diverse and showcase multiple talents instead of opting toward the same few skills: children who are singing and dancing while a teacher hosts; this would get a range of volunteers for different activities instead of the same two or three people.

There are so many ways to foster a community that initially start entirely with management modelling them and also providing the funding to do them. As teachers in my high-priced tuition school, we develop residential trips so that the students create connections with each other. Why don’t we do that together? Why aren’t we modelling what we claim to (and in the case of some, actually do) teach our students? If you’re creating an environment that involves showing how to act instead of telling how to act, our issues decrease significant (both in terms of staff interactions and student behaviour).

Instead, my current management opted for this so-called ‘natural team-building’, which really was the development of friendship groups that turned into cliques. I do not consider having friends at work to be detrimental; in fact, having friends at work is frequently shown as being helpful (as long as they don’t stress us out). The problem with this form of ‘natural team-building’ is that, while some people were able to gravitate toward others who they were more likely to feel comfortable with, it left a few people in a position where they were seeking out others for survival; they were seeking out spaces that would allow them to work together and feel even a modicum of comfort. In short, ‘natural team-building’ in an artificially created environment doesn’t exist at all. It’s a cop-out for doing nothing, for being lazy, for not managing anything.

That isn’t to say that those friendships that were forged starting in survival rather than choice are bad; those friendships can be equally as strong (and maybe stronger, due to shared frustrations). Maybe these people actually end up with others who they’d have originally gravitated toward in the first place, or they learn to like and stick up for each other.

However, the entire structure only highlighted the lack of cohesion and the extreme division between the groups. Who can they trust? Probably those in their immediate circle. Can they trust the people who they perceive as excluding them? Maybe, but they’re not sure so they feel really insecure in their position and with their colleagues. How do they figure out who can be trusted? Perhaps they choose not to trust anyone and keep to themselves, or they go full-on and try to trust people in the other groups (getting mixed results), or they play games and feed information to one person to see where it ends up.

None of these are healthy for a workplace, especially if that workplace is a school. And they’re all so easy to deal with.

But only if you have the structures in place to do so.

Recently, I ended up in some online discussion (which I’m glad remained, at the very least, a civil discussion) with someone who was trying to say that it’s cool that Alberta, Canada is introducing ‘safe zones’ around abortion clinics but that it infringes on the anti-abortion protesters’ freedom of speech. (I can’t help but view it as a genuine conversation, rather than something related to a right-wing troll; they weren’t clinging to the typical right-wing troll tactics.)

To start, there are a number of issues with this, but the most glaringly obvious is that people (most often Americans, but sometimes other individuals) internalise United States laws as if they’re a global structure and cease to recognise that some countries have different laws and beliefs surrounding the truths that ‘we hold to be self-evident’.

To be fair, even different locations in the United States have laws that show this to be true, such as Censorship Laws and what topics are ‘banned’ or ‘excluded’ from the curricula of public education. While Congress can make no law that prohibits the free exercise or abridging of freedom of speech, it does not expressly forbid local and state governments from doing so (though we often assume it does based on some legal precedence and culturally agree it should apply at all levels of government). Many people, interestingly, also conflate this ‘right’ to be part of their ability to talk on social media (Twitter, Google, Facebook, Reddit, etc.) and purchase web-hosting. While there are arguments to be made, it’s very clear that many Americans (and people globally) mistakenly conflate private business for government, which is a continuous problem that I know I addressed long ago when I was working on a series of posts about PewDiePie.

Whew, that was a lengthy way of expressing that “This isn’t the US, and even the US isn’t precisely the US because States’ Rights.”

But in reality, the country in which this issue is happening is very clearly Canada; their laws are a lot more strict than those in the United States are towards defending offensive speech. In particular, they have a harsher legal definition of ‘hate speech’ than the US since we don’t really have an exemption for it; we do have hate crime laws, but they are far more focused on bodily harm and are really difficult to prove. Remember the Gay Panic Defense? My home state, Illinois, just now banned it as a defense for murdering someone, even though it should always have constituted a hate crime.

Having exceptions for hate speech is a good thing. However, it doesn’t exempt them from having the ironic crews of (typically white) people screaming that their rights are being taken away because they don’t have free speech without consequences (much like the lobster-in-charge, Jordan Peterson, is constantly doing). How horrible! How atrocious! You have to endure consequences for intentionally inciting hatred and trying to harm groups of people in the process? You poor baby! (Ugh.)

Anyway, here’s the comment in the thread that I found a bit obtuse, regarding threats vs. harassment:

Are they just saying that abortion is wrong and telling her that she is bad for doing it or are they threatening her? If they are threatening her then that is harassment and you should call the police to have them removed but only then can you stop them because while they may be incorrect in their thinking, they aren’t doing anything wrong. Free speech is a right that can’t be ethically limited because nothing good ever came from silencing information, thoughts, or ideas in anyway

For the record, the fact that any person is standing outside of an ‘abortion clinic’ (in reality: family planning clinic or reproductive health clinic, as they do far more than merely provide abortions) and shouting at someone about how a normal medical procedure is wrong? Is a form a violence. The fact that, while abortion is legal in Canada that it’s still difficult to get? Is a direct result of that violence. From uOttawa:

Abortion services are fully covered in Ontario, but wait times are long (up to 6 weeks in Ottawa). Only one in six hospitals in Canada offers abortions. There is a looming shortage of doctors willing to provide the service; many are approaching retirement and younger MDs are not replacing them, some out of fear of harassment and others because they have not witnessed the dangers of unsafe abortions. Hence, therapeutic abortion services may in theory be available, but they may not be accessible.

Standing outside of a family planning clinic and shouting down the people entering it — whether they are doctors or patients — directly impacts the availability of the service. No person wants to go to work and be harassed, which is only one of the many reasons why there are so few abortion providers in a lot of places. The same is also true for the country that I now live in, Italy. It is technically true that abortions are legal here (and the woman doing the English Civics Class for Immigrants that I was required by law to take was really keen on mentioning this over and over for some reason), but you’d be really hard-pressed to find somewhere that provides them because doctors are legally allowed to be ‘conscientious objectors’ (placing their so-called ‘beliefs’ over the actual life of a person) or heavily influenced to avoid doing so by a highly conservative Catholic lobby (citing ‘fear of harassment’).

So when someone tries to split hairs over “Are they saying she’s bad for doing it?” and “Are they threatening her?” The answer to both questions is yes, because by being there in the first place, they are threatening her well-being and access to necessary services to maintain her health (mental, emotional, and/or physical). These people, the ones who are standing outside legitimate family planning and reproductive health clinics like Planned Parenthood are there so often that they need to have clinic escorts to help people get inside, even if they’re not going there for an abortion. (By the way, clinic escorts are super amazing people.) These people stalk individuals online, especially clinic staff. Even if they’re there and not directly beating people up, their very existence is a form of terrorism because they are mentally abusing and manipulating people who provide or use these services. It’s a way of deterring people, scaring and terrifying them, forcing someone into your beliefs because you can’t handle them making decisions for themselves.

That, in all honesty, should be illegal. And that shouldn’t matter which country you’re in, to be quite honest.

As an anecdote, I went to a Planned Parenthood in the United States to discuss birth control methods. I was barraged with the kinds of hyper-evangelical, anti-abortion rhetoric so much in that one time that it made me, a potential patient, not want to go back. I was left with so much anxiety after that one time; I cannot fathom how the people working in clinics like Planned Parenthood are capable of dealing with that day after day. It stressed me out once. They are more than happy to harass you for “getting an abortion,” even if that isn’t why you’re there.

These are the same people who:

  • Create fake clinics (which they often call “crisis centers” or “women’s health centers”) so that they can con women into going to them and they can then manipulate their emotions, provide intentionally false information, and try to force them to not get abortions (and also feel bad for even thinking about getting one). These clinics provide nothing for any form of family support, by the way. (And they are annoyingly easy to find on Google Maps, making it harder for people to access the services they genuinely need.)
  • Not to mention that, in those clinics, they pose as medical professionals without having any of the credentials or education. This should shock no one, and it definitely explains the excess of intentionally false information.
  • Use deceptive advertising in order to get women to visit their clinic, which often showcases out-of-context information or genuinely harmful images (that also show they don’t care at all about people who miscarried or were forced to get an abortion for medical reasons — so much for being pro-life). Some companies, like Google, are trying to remove advertisements like these. Also, the Supreme Court in the US is going to be reviewing the case NIFLA vs Becerra, which is trying to challenge California’s Reproductive FACT Act as something that ‘infringes First Amendment rights’. I swear, these anti-abortion jerks don’t care about living people or facts. (The fact that someone is upset that they cannot intentionally mislead someone and are required to provide facts about who they are is a clear indication that they’re Not Good People.)
  • Delay people from getting an abortion, which is incredibly important as a lot of places have time limits (especially the US, which keeps shifting to shorter and shorter time limits).
  • Receive tax dollars that are funneled to them by American Republicans, even though they literally do nothing helpful at all for anyone. They also continue making ludicrous laws about clinics that provide abortions, which also have also included things as absurd as the width of doorways.

This list is severely US-heavy, but cities in Canada have been removing the same deceptive advertising, and they have also dealt with the same kinds of fake clinics. Unsurprisingly, they still see the same anti-abortion protesters outside of clinics harassing and abusing women, which they are trying to deal with by enforcing safe zones.

And the fact that any clinic needs these safe zones at all is ridiculous. The protesters who are “exercising their right to free speech” are content to continually silence those who also talk against them, terrifying them into a course of action that is deemed “acceptable” or shaming them for receiving a normal medical procedure.

If these people want to exercise their right to free speech, write a book. Make a pamphlet, create a website (but remember to host it on your own private server), whatever. But stop saying that protesting these clinics is “free speech” when it’s nothing short of harassing and shaming people for receiving a treatment that impacts their well-being.

These anti-abortion protesters are trying to game the system, and we need to stop allowing it.

Being a good manager is difficult, but it’s not difficult because the job is inately hard; it’s difficult because the skills required are not inate to many people, and they have to work hard to have them. This is particular to three skills, in my experience.

The first is developing genuine communication skills. The second is developing inclusive environments. The third is showing adequate appreciation for everyone‘s work, effort, and time. (And yes, the third could probably be included in genuine communication, but it’s a particularly specific issue that is often neglected.)

Note: As I am a teacher and am currently focused in secondary education, that’s the perspective I’m writing this from.

In the 15 years that I’ve been working various jobs in different industries, ranging from the Ponderosa Steakhouse that’s been closed in my hometown for years to two family-owned farming businesses (including one belonging to my grandparents) to teaching in a variety of schools internationally, I have yet to work for a single manager who either already had these skills or even bothered to work on having them. As a result, I constantly work with people who are miserable and unhappy. If they’re not that far gone, they are intensely frustrated with management while simultaneously loving their job (which, upon reflection, I think only applies to those in my current field — education).

The people who become managers (or are hired to be managers) often forget that, while they are responsible for making decisions and ‘being in charge’, the employees they manage are other humans. As a result of working with humans, these humans have needs and often engage in situations that may require mediation of some sort. Instead, some managers act as if they are working with robots who will just tolerate the decisions being made without complaint. Even if this isn’t the belief they openly hold or genuinely adhere to, they still often internalise the kind of management that has been failing everywhere else and making great managers so rare. And these people, whether they admit it or not, are a huge factor in employee engagement and retention.

Humans, for better or worse, often have issues with other humans. Part of a manager’s role is to help mitigate and mediate these, often working on ways to prevent it from happening in the first place. If any employees have made it known that they are feeling left out of decisions and excluded from projects by other staff, it is the manager’s responsibility to find out how to rectify this problem.

There are a number of questions to ask when doing this: When did it start? What allowed for these rifts and divisions to exist? Were there signs of this happening? If so, what were they? What steps can we take to fix this problem? How can we better encourage and teamwork among our staff and promote the inclusion of everyone? (This last point is particularly important for educational institutions, which often claim they want ‘collaborative teaching’ but rarely do much to enable it.)

Humans are not robots, and they often have other responsibilities beyond work. As much as I wish I were Data, the unfortunate fact is that being human means I have my limits.

Say there is a project in a school that is incredibly time-consuming and requires a lot of data input of 400 items, and one employee has volunteered to completely set it up and work on it in their free time (meaning non-teaching and non-planning hours). As the manager, you recognise that it is a large undertaking; however, you don’t know all the intricacies of the task, as you delegated it to this employee. You ask the employee to complete it within 20 hours spread over two weeks.

The employee, however, responds with concerns. First, their access to required resources is blocked by another employee. When they run out of materials, they have to then wait on someone else to grant them access to more. Sometimes this takes hours, other times it takes days. Second, they state that it is nearly impossible to do in that timeframe because they have to manually input all the data for each item; they tell you that the average time for one item is 15 minutes. If they have to manually input the data for all 400 items, that’s 100 hours, and that’s also assuming that they won’t have to restart computers and never take a break for anything at all. They request additional hours (paid overtime) or a decrease in other required functions; they also state that, for every time they are required to take additional hours (events, duties, or substitutions), they need to given additional time to complete the task.

As a manager, what do you do?

Do you argue with the employee and get defensive over the decision you made? Hopefully, not. If you do, you’re only going to make them distrust you. In all likelihood, they’re going to disengage with work and tell you “Yeah, sure” and do whatever work they feel like at that moment. The other alternative is that they try their best to meet the expectations and become over-stressed for fear they might lose their job. You might even get a combination of the two. Either way, they feel insulted, like you’re not listening to them, and that you don’t care.

This is, as a whole, a poor form of communication.

So do you stop to listen to the employee and recognise that they might have more expertise on the project than you do, as they are the one responsible for setting it up? I hope so. If you do this, you’re spending time asking questions and trying to better understand the project. You’re showing that you’re willing to understand why it’s taking so long, what work is involved, and why so much of it has to be done manually. If you do this, you’re far more likely to be open to discussion and compromising with this employee; you’re also able to properly express why it needs to be completed. As a result, the employee is going to feel like you care about them and are willing to be flexible enough to help them finish the task.

Managers actually have to set guidelines and communicate information effectively. Recently, I watched some teachers put together an absolutely fantastic event for school. They put a lot of work and time into putting it together, but they kept hitting obstacles and roadblocks from management regarding different elements. But why?

Because management did two things: One, they kept changing their mind on how to handle certain aspects of the event right up until the very last minute. Two, the teachers had provided a full range of ideas for what they wanted to do through meeting minutes, but management did not disseminate relevant informations (policies, laws, guidelines) and did not address what the teachers had already submitted. In short, management was so scarcely involved that when they finally did or said something, it frustrated the people who were putting in hours to make sure a school event went smoothly.

It’s obvious what should have been done here: Management should’ve been far more interested in what was happening, rather than waiting until that final second. They should have provided guidelines for activities the teachers wanted to do, rather than suddenly hit them with “We can’t do this because of reasons” a mere 24 hours before. If management had been more engaged in the planning process, the levels of frustration would’ve been so much lower.

Managers are responsible for hiring decisions, which also means that they’re responsible for appropriate training of employees. A lot of jobs hire people who aren’t perfectly qualified; that’s normal. For teachers, sometimes there are systems that they have to learn (curriculum, online gradebooks, school-wide classroom technology programs) as they work.

However, it is not the job of other employees to train their fellow employees on these systems. We do it both out of kindness and necessity, but it is not our job. Ensuring everyone is up-to-date on skills is the manager’s job, and it is also their job to ensure that training is available.

Now, if you delegate this training to an employee who is capable, you need to create a structure to do so. In a collaborative school environment, this could be having each teacher (or a pair of teachers) do a training day on an app or a specific teaching technique. You could also create mentorship programs within the school, pairing teachers who lack certain skills to those who have them. Some schools my friends work in have mentor programs where veteran teachers are paired with new teachers to help them get acquainted with the profession, the school, and classroom management; this is done on a rotational basis per year, so people don’t feel overburdened or used.

But you also need to acknowledge the time these employees give up to be trainers or mentors. You can do this by decreasing duties elsewhere (recess duties) or providing a ‘mentor bonus’. In applicable schools, my friends’ mentors would have received an additional bonus to their salary for doing this. However, because they were required to on a rotational basis, the salary was not the only reason they became mentors; it just ensured that they made time for it. (And mentees who felt their mentors were not engaging with them could talk to management about it.)

All of these scenarios involve one or more of the three skills that managers should have. There are so many ways to try to develop inclusive, communicative environments where people value the work of others. It shouldn’t be so hard to do this, but so many people focus on the so-called traditional management methods that they neglect to find that many of them don’t work and negatively impact everyone involved. And it seems that it’s largely due to the fact that our managers aren’t even trained to manage people, which is a whole other problem.

Previously: I briefly discussed Free Speech and Censorship in the United States.

Note: I’ve been busy with preparing for the new semester; trying to get my lesson plans in order has been wonderful but stressful.

Over the years, there have been several articles and TV segments on how there are consequences for free speech and that (majority white) people need to stop acting as if they’re entitled to consequence-free speech. This idea is consistently addressed every time there is a major upset regarding someone, usually after a high-profile person of some sort, who has engaged in harassment and hate speech toward specific individuals or groups of people. In the case of this segment, when Twitter banned Milo Yiannopoulous for harassing Leslie Jones and Disney completely decided to drop PewDiePie.


There have even been comics dedicated to this concept, such as the one by Randall Munroe at XKCD.


I feel like this concept is summed up in a scientific theory that most people first learn in physical science, which can also be applied to social situations. If you’ve forgotten Newton’s Third Law of Motion, it’s the following.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Just as this law is true in physics, it can also be seen in pretty much every social situation. This is largely why people have to take a lot of things into consideration such as social cues, context, location and environment, and the other people who are involved or could be impacted by their actions or speech.

It’s not uncommon for people who scream about the consequences that someone has “suffered” to also respond with “it’s the death of free speech,” as if they’re completely incapable of saying the derogatory slurs and are being forced to self-censor just because one company removed a platform. They get upset, feeling as if those social media companies should be providing space for people to say whatever they want even if it contradicts the policies and rules that a user agrees to obey upon signing up for an account. This completely neglects one glaring fact: they’re not bound by the First Amendment. These users continue to get angry at companies for distancing themselves from certain high-profile people, as if they’re not allowed to protect their brand from someone who is clearly incapable of creating content that coincides with their current interests. So let’s look at how different social media companies have “censored” their users:

Reddit, after Ellen Pao resigned (following a slew of racialised misogyny in the form of complaints after it had been announced that they’d ban harassing subreddits) and was replaced with Steve Huffamn, decided that they wanted to appeal to both potential advertisers and their users by hiding racist subreddits. They wanted to encourage a ‘free marketplace of ideas’, keeping free speech open by ‘quarantining’ the more questionable subreddits. Clearly, that option was wildly successful because advertisers mostly just stayed away (and the users’ behaviours and responses toward advertising didn’t help). Then again, the fact that they can’t seem to get organised probably hasn’t be very beneficial for them, either. Recently, however, they banned a few prominent subreddits dedicated to the alt-right for doxing people and excessive harassment. All of these go against Reddit’s (loosely and sparingly utilised) content policy:

Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone’s personal information, or post links to personal information.

We do not tolerate the harassment of people on our site, nor do we tolerate communities dedicated to fostering harassing behavior.

Do not post content that incites harm against people or groups of people.

Facebook has a policy that has been contested over time for some egregious errors in how the platform functions. Focusing on censorship alone, Facebook has had issues in the past of banning or deactivating accounts of women posting pictures of breastfeeding (a perfectly normal human function); on Instagram’s platform, they deleted photos Rupi Kaur posted that showed how periods affect those with uteruses (later apologising to her). It wasn’t until mid-2015 that both Facebook and Instagram, challenged by these and other similar instances, decided to change their definitions about cdxwhat constituted ‘nudity’ (but you still can’t show nipples on a woman).

However, they have had issues about how banning people works. Because users are capable of flagging comments as abusive, Facebook ends up banning people who have been swarmed because of groups who disagree with them. Meanwhile, there are actually awful groups that never get removed and are allowed to perpetuate hate speech. This goes directly against their own views about controversial, harmful and hate speech on their platform, while stating that they don’t tolerate bullying and harassment in their terms:

You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence.

This is despite a history where people, such as Angela Merkel, have challenged Facebook to ban neo-Nazi groups, having to pull pages of Italian neo-Nazis after people lodged complaints, and watching the US government get sued by grandstanding anti-Muslim groups for Facebook “censoring” them. And then it’s been found that the secret groups on Facebook can actually be harmful and act as echo chambers.

I don’t feel the need to quote more than two social media companies since their rules are essentially the same, and it is largely dependent upon them to enforce them. The point is this: When you sign up for their service, you agree to obey the rules they set. If you don’t, you risk having your account deactivated or deleted, and you might even be banned; it’s entirely up to them. It’s their service that you’re using (usually for free), which means that crying about ‘free speech’ is absurd. So if you decide to post a picture of your Nazi salute on Twitter, be prepared to get banned. Posting alt-right propaganda and hate speech? Possible ban (and then people who were rightfully banned will go and claim it’s because of PC culture instead of them harassing people and then go create fake black accounts). At no point in the process is your ‘right to free speech’ being impeded.

Take all this information and now apply it to contracts with other companies. Milo clearly doesn’t have the right to publish a book through a specific publisher; they get to have the final say. CPAC doesn’t have to allow Milo or Richard into their space if they disagree with them on anything (but still allow known white nationalist, Steve Bannon); it’s not a requirement that they give them a platform should they say something that is found disagreeable. Breitbart can fire Milo, should they decide to, in response to the fact that their staff will leave if they don’t; it’s their choice. PewDiePie doesn’t get to make the decisions for Disney’s Maker Studios because it’s their contract, even though he was given “editorial freedom” (and may have ruined it for everyone after him).

Here’s a personal anecdote. My last few contracts for work, and this is not uncommon where I currently live, have stated that I am not allowed to do anything that “harms the reputation of the institution.” This even applied to people who made a complaint on a private Facebook account that only your friends could see, as I have worked with numerous individuals who’ve had their co-workers friended and had screenshots reported to their bosses and superintendents even though the account was not public and couldn’t possibly hurt the institution in question.

All contracts have variations on this concept, regardless of whether or not it directly references ‘bringing harm to their reputation’. This is part of at-will work, in most cases; there are numbers of employees who have been fired for their comments, regardless of if they are benign or legitimate complaints about where you work on social media or if you’ve said something harmful that later leads to you being fired because they don’t want you to represent them as an employee. This is because there is no Constitutional free speech at work.

And, for people like these men, social media is their workplace; they don’t have a right to be there.

So one of the arguments that people keep making in regards to racist language – whether it be the “thoughtless prankster” PewDiePie, the blatantly neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, or the clearly white supremacist Milo Yiannopoulos – is that everyone should have access to the Freedom of Speech. This divorces a lot of what’s happening in these events and the context surrounding them with what Freedom of Speech actually is and how it functions.

Note: I said I was making a multi-part post, and this is the first of the set. I may make reference to the consequences of free speech, but I’m not discussing it here directly. Yet. Also, I’m not a lawyer, but I have at least some understanding of the difference between governments and corporations.

In all three cases I’ve mentioned, we’re dealing either with people who live in or work with companies in the United States. As such, that’s the perspective I’m going to take. This right has been written into the First Amendment of our Constitution and adopted in 1791:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key word here is Congress, which implies that iall public spaces shall allow for freedom of speech. For reference, ‘public’ in this instance is referring to something that relates to government; it’s referring to spaces that are maintained (usually) by the government and relate to or affect people of the nation.

Meanwhile, if you search for “pewdiepie freedom of speech” on Twitter, you get a whole slew of people who fail to understand this basic concept:



The point in highlighting this is that businesses are not the government. This means that any time someone is crying about Milo losing his freedom of speech because Twitter banned him, they’re wrong. If people are mourning PewDiePie’s loss of a platform because Disney’s Maker Studios cut ties with him, it makes no sense. Their right to freedom of speech is not guaranteed in these instances. Disney can silence and remove people from their platform just as easily as Google, Twitter, Facebook, and any other company can.

Disney – unless there’s been a significant change in the way that the United States’ government works, which is probably not beyond the realm of possibility considering what’s been happening in the past 24 hours with Michael Flynn – is not the government. They are a private business; the same applies to Google, who owns YouTube. The right that we’re guaranteed in the First Amendment was meant to keep citizens safe from the government; it wasn’t written to tell businesses that they were obligated to host people on their platform so that they could make offensive “ironic” jokes or actually spew hatred.

While we’re at it, let’s look at a brief history of American censorship by the government, since we’re probably moments away from the Sedition Act of 2017. (I honestly wouldn’t put it past President Agent Orange, his administration and cabinet, and the Republicans to make it happen.)

In the early stages of the United States but after President Washington left office, the Federalist Party pushed three harmful acts that were collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. This consisted of the Alien Friendlies Act of 1798, the Alien Enemy Act of 1798, and the Sedition Act of 1798.

In effect, what the Sedition Act did was make it a crime to publish anything against the US government and Congress that was considered to be “false, scandalous, or malicious” and had the “intent to defame” them or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The original goal, or so John Adams claimed, was that they were enacted to decrease the amount of libel in the press; during this time, more and more partisan papers were coming into existence, which meant that there was a lot more of the partisan fighting taking place than had previously existed. Or, at least, more fighting that had existed in print than previously seen. (Adams was also well-known for having an ego but also being incredibly fragile to any criticism or slight. I know, it’s really difficult to imagine that as a combination of personality traits.)

Fast forward to 1918 and we find that Wilson’s administration decided to create and enact yet another Sedition Act, which was developed as an extension to the Espionage Act of 1917. Again, it makes it illegal for people to say anything that could be perceived as showing disloyalty or negativity towards the government; it was meant to get rid of the dissent that was voiced by groups like the socialists, anti-war activists, and pacifists. In notable examples, it silenced (or, at least, attempted to silence) people like Eugene V. Debs (socialist party member and union leader), Mollie Steimer (a Russian immigrant, anti-war activist, and anarchist), Marie Equi (a lesbian who aligned herself with both the anarchists and the radical labour movement), and William Edenborn (a German businessman who was a naturalised citizen who was also 70-years old at the time of his arrest).

Obviously, both of these Sedition Acts either were allowed to expire or were repealed. Thomas Jefferson ran on a platform in the election of 1800 that denounced the Alien and Sedition Acts and allowed both the Sedition Act and the Alien Friendlies Act to expire (the Alien Enemy Act still remains today but has been recodified), and many historians credit theses events with providing a helping hand in the rise of the Democratic-Republican Party and the fall of the Federalist Party. Wilson’s Sedition Act was repealed in 1920. which happened some time after Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote a dissenting opinion in Abrams v United States (1919) that expressed his views on the “marketplace of ideas.”

But then in 1940, the United States Congress enacted the Alien Registration Act, which is also known as the Smith Act. This law targeted non-citizen adults who were alleged to be communists, fascists, and anarchists. Because of a fear of the fifth columns that might betray the United States’ government from within, they decided to create this law to “protect” themselves from unknown radical elements that may have immigrated to the US. However, it included the following:

… with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or … organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof.

Effectively, this entire law enabled the US to target the speech of non-citizens and determine whether or not it “advocated the overthrow or destruction of the US government.” Interestingly, despite its name, American citizens were tried under this law. Many of the people who were targeted by this were Communist leaders who were largely pro-union and workers’ rights – including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a founding member of the ACLU who was expelled from the organisation because she was a Communist, and Claudia Jones, who was a Black activist and journalist that immigrated to the US from Trinidad as a child – and some (not nearly as many) were militant racists and actual fascists.

So clearly, the United States a bastion of free speech and the ability to say whatever we want and whenever we want, right?

Well, not quite. There are far more events in history that I haven’t even remotely had a chance to look at. Here are more examples:

  • Prior to and during the American Civil War, the US Postmaster General openly refused to allow any mail that carried pamphlets about abolition.
  • The First Amendment didn’t apply to states and municipalities until the beginning of the 20th century (1900s), allowing many places and institutions to go ahead and censor things they didn’t want.
  • Prior restraint wasn’t even considered unconstitutional until the 1930s.
  • Let’s not forget the Office of Censorship was an actual thing during WWII.
  • Remember the Pentagon Papers that a lot of people like to cite for helping to end the US involvement in the Vietnam War (1955-1975)? Do you remember what happened to Daniel Ellsberg? He was charged with conspiracy and espionage, among other things before the charges were dropped (because Nixon’s White House were performing unlawful actions to attempt to discredit him). They weren’t declassified until 2011, either.
  • The entire premise of McCarthyism. Have fun with that. You could literally take an entire university course on the subject and not finish.
  • How about that good ol’ Protect America Act (2007), which actually amended FISA (Nixon-era legislation)? Despite my distaste with some of their other actions (shown elsewhere in this post), the ACLU provides a pretty good analysis of it.

And those are all the times that Congress has enacted laws that directly went against the First Amendment or where our state and local governments didn’t have to guarantee those rights to us and it only completely applied at the federal level. We’re still living with many of those and others that I haven’t even listed.

But honestly, we have a whole list of restrictions and exceptions on our ‘free speech’ because the judiciary has tried cases where it found that things like hate speech are not protected, especially when it urges people to act out. I mean, if we pick out some of the people discussed, much of what Dick and Milo say falls under both incitement and ‘fighting words and offensive speech’. Even if Twitter were a public (read: government) institution, they would still have every right to ban them because what they’re saying is meant to cause harm and incite some form of violence. It’s impossible to support them (and I’m still massively disappointed in the ACLU supporting Lee Rowland as she continues to add to their awful history of supporting hate speech and imagery as she supports Milo in their name).

Using Milo as an example, he outed a trans student at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His “free speech” was not impugned, but he decided to cross over into harassment. This led to the student, Adelaide Kramer, receiving a deluge of hateful messages, which wouldn’t have happened had Milo said nothing. And the administrators, who were in the audience, are just as guilty of allowing it to continue; they could have stopped it the moment he singled her out but chose not to. The protests at UCB erupted only because the university refused to acknowledge that Milo wanted to out undocumented students. In both cases, the ‘talk’ is inciting violence; these people are left feeling unsafe, especially in a world that is already dangerous for them.


Known Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, in response to the Quebec City Mosque Shooting, decides to post this. The intent is clear: He’s trying to further incite people against Muslims. You know, people who now have to ramp up security because of people like him.


We recently watched a very high profile example of someone losing her right to free speech take place on the Senate floor, especially as she was reading the letter of a Black woman. Elizabeth Warren was silenced as she read Coretta Scott King’s 1986 letter addressing the judicial nomination of Jeff Sessions at the time. Let that sink in for a moment. One of the few women in the Senate took it upon herself to give a voice to a Black civil rights activist (leader) during Black History Month about a person who we know has a negative record with Civil Rights because it is so incredibly well-documented. I saw so few of the same people decrying this event in the way that I see them supporting people like Milo. And when they did talk about this, they focused entirely on Warren being silenced; they neglect the fact that she’d entered other evidence against Sessions from the same time and was allowed to keep talking. It was only once she started reading King’s letter and describing his history of racist actions that she was silenced for “impugning a Senate member.”

But instead of actually acknowledging the harm that these men and others like them are doing, we’d rather clutch pearls about their “loss” of free speech on platforms that don’t legally have to allow it (and, in many cases, could legally disallow it on the basis of safety for others). Yet, I don’t see the same support for people in Black Lives Matter; I don’t see the same support for people protesting police brutality and violence. I don’t see the same support for Muslim people of all backgrounds.

We, and I’m looking directly at white liberals and progressives, are too quick to support the Freedom of Speech when people who’ve abused that right don’t deserve it. Simultaneously, we don’t support the people who need it, and we’re ridiculously silent when it comes to amplifying their voices. It’s absolutely infuriating.

Next: Freedom of Speech is Not Freedom from Consequences.

next ›