Suzanne Nossel headshot

Photo by Beowulf Sheehan

Every Friday, we discuss tricky questions about free speech and expression with our CEO Suzanne Nossel, author of Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All, in our weekly PEN Pod segment “Tough Questions.” This week, Suzanne explains the disproportionate impacts of online abuse on journalists (relating to our new report on the subject) and the conflicting interests of social media companies in their pledges to be more vigilant on suppressing hate speech. We also return to the topic of Myanmar and what may be the cause of the lack of international attention, and lastly, we talk about the implications of a newly introduced Tennessee bill on students’ right to free expression and identity. Check out the full episode below (our interview with Suzanne begins at the 12:30 mark).

We just heard our colleague Viktorya Vilk talk about the devastating impacts of online abuse and what the social media companies need to do to start addressing it. I want you to zoom out a bit. Why haven’t they taken action on this, and what pressure do we need to apply so that they get the message that not only is this devastating for people’s lives, but devastating for free speech and free expression?
 It is—as Viktorya spelled out—a very serious and pervasive problem that really has censorious repercussions that hit those who are most in need of a voice the hardest. From the perspective of the tech platforms, they tend to talk a good game about the measures that they adopt, the policies that they have in place, their commitment to banishing hatred and vitriol, and yet, so much of what constitutes online abuse sort of falls through the cracks of that. It’s not manifestly racist or misogynist and has to be understood.

Context is a function of the volume and the pervasiveness of particular kinds of communication as opposed to simply their content, and I think the bottom line is there is a kind of alchemy and synergy between the business models that these online platforms are based upon—and the propagation of abusive content, the platforms thrive on intense engagement. When a swarm of people go after somebody for something controversial or objectionable that they’ve said, that drives engagement. There’s a kind of pile-on effect. It’s compelling. People seem to be losing it—they’re jumping on top of one another’s comments at a furious pace, and that is the type of intensive firestorm that social media really thrives off of, and so, I think there is a fundamental contradiction between the very building blocks of these platforms and their professed but deeply inadequate commitment to combating online abuse.

“When a swarm of people go after somebody for something controversial or objectionable that they’ve said, that drives engagement. There’s a kind of pile-on effect. It’s compelling. People seem to be losing it—they’re jumping on top of one another’s comments at a furious pace, and that is the type of intensive firestorm that social media really thrives off of, and so, I think there is a fundamental contradiction between the very building blocks of these platforms and their professed but deeply inadequate commitment to combating online abuse.”

I think that the pressure that has to be applied is one that ultimately will affect the bottom line, and we know it’s very difficult. We saw last summer the effort to force the platforms to become more serious about combating hate speech by getting advertisers to suspend their investments on Facebook for just a month. I think it had some effect, but all the advertisers came back, and I think ultimately to push forward a campaign like this requires working on multiple tracks.

There has to be a public awareness element of it. In the case of online abuse, it disproportionately affects journalists who are trying to make a living by expressing themselves, so we need to be amplifying the concerns and the recommendations through writers and reporters who are talking about these issues. There’s a public dimension to it of just registering the level of concern, which we know is widespread about the problem of online abuse, hitting the advertisers, engaging directly with executives at these companies, informing and engaging the U.S. Congress so that is part of their efforts to apply more scrutiny—this is part of the package and what they’re looking at.

I want to move briefly to a very different topic, Myanmar. This week, the State Department here in the United States ordered most of its personnel to leave the country, which—as we’ve discussed on this podcast—has been faced with a horrific crisis, both between the military leaders and opposition voices in the streets. We’re seeing airstrikes on civilians this week, and when we talked about this last time, the thing that I asked you is what’s different this time—and we talked a little bit about the publicness of all of this—how people can see what’s going on, the regime there is not getting the message.
 No, it’s really not. Things have escalated in a deadly fashion over the last several weeks. Now most reports are saying over 400 people killed, we had over the weekend a number of children who were just gunned down at these protests in Yangon. It’s a terrifying situation. You now have rebels sort of taking to the forest, arming themselves, and planning military insurrection. Ethnic groups that have been engaged in fighting for years reconstituting themselves, perhaps making common cause to challenge the military government. It’s a frightening and devolving situation.

“The most heartening piece of it is that the people of Myanmar, who for so many years lived under such brutal repression to the point where even having or expressing an opinion on a matter of public concern was something that people were really afraid to do. They’re incredibly brave to take to the streets under these circumstances and to persist with these protests.”

We of course continue to work with writers and journalists to make sure that they can carry out their role of documenting and exposing this. That is extremely important, but it does feel like there’s a muted international reaction, and it’s a function of a number of things. Part of it are the changed geopolitics with the rise of China and the secure knowledge that the junta in Myanmar and everybody else has that action—for example, the UN Security Council—would be impossible, China attending this military parade over the weekend, in effect celebrating the perpetrators of the coup, so that’s part of it.

Then a muted reaction from the West for a number of reasons. The discrediting of Aung San Suu Kyi, who years ago was a human rights heroine, but then sullied herself by essentially ratifying the grotesque abuses of the Rohingya Muslim minorities. So for us who worked in Myanmar over the years, trying to build up civil society and enable people who had been repressed for so long to have a voice, these are really devastating setbacks.

What I’d say the most heartening piece of it is that the people of Myanmar, who for so many years lived under such brutal repression to the point where even having or expressing an opinion on a matter of public concern was something that people were really afraid to do. They’re incredibly brave to take to the streets under these circumstances and to persist with these protests. So I think where that will is, there remains hope.

“This sense that it is the role of government and legislatures to dictate the bounds of what happens in American classrooms—to either include or exclude certain ideas—I think that’s very dangerous. . . I don’t think there’s a compelling government interest in trying to circumscribe our kids’ education, or substitute the judgment of legislators for those that have educators. I think, on the contrary—particularly when it comes to these bills that are targeted at identity—it can be incredibly undermining to students who are coming of age and find that their life stories, their perspectives, their experiences are erased from the classroom, and can’t be so much as acknowledged.”

Just briefly at the end here, I wanted to talk about some legislation that’s been moving through state houses in the United States. Just this week, we saw the state of Tennessee consider a bill that would bar schools from using any curricular materials that “normalize or support gay issues or lifestyles,” and this is a raft of legislation that we’re seeing across the country that seems to really be taking aim at gay, lesbian, trans, bisexual, queer kids. How is this a threat to free expression, in addition to being a threat to the lives of these kids?
 Well, it’s quite clear. I mean, the idea of legislators banning certain curriculum or topics from being discussed in schools is just an infringement on the professional discretion of teachers and educators to do their jobs, and to address the student populations that they are engaged with.

Unfortunately, this is a new trend that’s not limited to just trying to take LGBTQ topics off the agenda, but also The 1619 Project and other anti-racism initiatives. There’s an act that was introduced in Rhode Island that would “prohibit the teaching of divisive concepts and mandate that any contracts or grants include provisions prohibiting the teaching of divisive concepts and prohibit making any individual feel, discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any distress on account of their race or sex,” so it’s kind of coming from all sides.

This sense that it is the role of government and legislatures to dictate the bounds of what happens in American classrooms—to either include or exclude certain ideas—I think that’s very dangerous. I think most of these laws would not pass muster under the First Amendment. I don’t think there’s a compelling government interest in trying to circumscribe our kids’ education, or substitute the judgment of legislators for those that have educators. I think, on the contrary—particularly when it comes to these bills that are targeted at identity—it can be incredibly undermining to students who are coming of age and find that their life stories, their perspectives, their experiences are erased from the classroom, and can’t be so much as acknowledged. So for me, this is a real alarm bell—what we’re seeing across the country—and something that our program on Free Speech and Education is very much seized with.