Josh Hawley Doesn’t Understand Free Speech
Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri is, alongside Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, one of the spiritual leaders of the violent insurrection that took place at the Capitol on January 6th. His parroting of debunked conspiracy theories regarding electoral fraud led to his objection to the certification of Joe Biden’s landmark victory.
Even after the violence that erupted, Hawley wouldn’t back down. He continues to object to the outcome of the election and smears anyone who speaks out against him as an elitist or—in the case of the publisher that dropped him—Orwellian.
Hawley had a deal with Simon & Schuster to publish his book, The Tyranny of Big Tech. But after Hawley’s role in the shameful mob violence that occurred at the Capitol, Simon & Schuster announced that they were dropping the title. From their statement:
As a publisher, it will always be our mission to amplify a variety of voices and viewpoints: at the same time we take seriously our larger public responsibility and cannot support Senator Hawley after his role in what became a dangerous threat to our democracy and freedom.
While Simon & Schuster has made questionable decisions in the past (such as their willingness to publish John Bolton’s book despite Bolton’s refusal to testify before Congress so he could earn as high of an advance as possible), in this case at least, they did the right thing.
Hawley didn’t agree. He tweeted out the following statement:
Let’s examine Hawley’s hyperbolic logic that this is “a direct assault on the First Amendment” by first looking at the text of the First Amendment:
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 First Amendment prevents Congress from imposing restrictions on speech. In other words, the First Amendment guarantees that the government cannot come after you if you say something they don’t like.
There are, of course, exceptions to the First Amendment. Just as a random example, the Supreme Court has affirmed that advocacy or the use of force is not protected when it’s either meant to incite immediate lawless action or is likely to produce such action.
Even still, the First Amendment only applies to Congress’s lack of ability to prohibit speech. It does not apply to private individuals, nor does it apply to private corporations.
For years, the right has played the victim card whenever their violent, racist rhetoric receives criticism. They cry that it’s a violation of their freedom of speech when they face boycotts or are dropped from publishers or networks.
This is, of course, absolute bullshit.
The First Amendment prevents the government from restricting your speech. It does not mandate that all private media corporations must provide you with a platform.
Simon & Schuster dropping Hawley is not violating his rights—it’s a private corporation making the decision on what they will and won’t publish. Hawley is demanding that Simon & Schuster pay him an advance, expend their resources on the production of the book (editing, proofreading, formatting, cover design, audio production, marketing), and pay him a cut of the profits.
In essence, Hawley is demanding that Simon & Schuster be forced to use their own resources to publish his book against their will.
Hawley not being given a platform with Simon & Schuster in no way prohibits him from publishing his book. In the age of self-publishing, Hawley could easily set up an Amazon account and publish his book himself. He could create a website and post the book up for free.
What Hawley is really pissed off about is not that his “speech is being restricted.” He’s a United States senator. According to OpenSecrets, he has a net worth between $500,000 and $1.7 million. So there is no reason to believe that Hawley is either being denied a platform. As a senator, he has a platform vastly more powerful than the average American and he certainly has the funds to completely finance his own books.
No, Hawley is pissed because Simon & Schuster is not making it as easy as possible for his lazy ass to profit off his self-serving endorsements of authoritarian violence.
I would also like to remind Hawley of the true meaning of Orwellian. It is used to describe things reminiscent of Orwell’s writing, specifically Nineteen Eighty-Four. And I’ll end by quoting a well-known phrase from that book:
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
In other words, Hawley’s claims that a private publisher exercising their right to choose what they publish is somehow an Orwellian act is just about the most Orwellian fucking thing I can think of.
