At Vox, Zack Beauchamp offered the woke rebuttal to the Harper’s Letter, or as Cathy Young delightfully called it, he “voxsplained” why the voices for free speech and open debate should “shut up.”

The latest rebuke to critics of progressive illiberalism comes from Vox’s Zack Beauchamp. While he ostensibly examines the arguments on both sides and grants some valid concerns to “free speech” defenders, Beauchamp concludes that there is no assault on free expression. Rather, he asserts, we’re having “the kinds of difficult conversations that every liberal society (maybe even every society) grapples with all the time” — about the boundaries of socially acceptable speech amidst changing cultural norms.

It is not, as noted conservatives like Noam Chomsky allege, a matter of silencing speech that fails to comport with the latest permissions from the Secretary of Social Justice, but merely a trifling matter over where the lines of socially acceptable speech should be drawn. Folks like Zack are trying to “change cultural norms” to suit their tastes, and anyone not adhering to those norms is wrong and deserves whatever they get.

But Zack’s argument isn’t cynical. The way he expresses it, they’re not constricting the boundaries of speech, but expanding them.

What’s happening now seems novel because we are currently seeing a wave of social justice activism that seeks to redefine how we understand appropriate debate over these topics, sometimes even pushing to consign to the margins views that may have seemed tolerable in the past. These advocates can and have overreached, and should be criticized when they do. But on the whole, their work is aimed not at restricting freedom but at expanding it — making historically marginalized voices feel comfortable enough in the public square to be their authentic selves, to exist honestly and speak their own truths.

Putting aside how Zack arrives at the assertion that advocates have overreached, since it reflects nothing more than Zack’s personal choice of boundaries, combined with his narcissistic view that whatever Zack believes is the right limit is the right limit, and all of humanity should ask Zack where the lines are drawn. This isn’t just a Zack thing, by the way, as every social justice scold believes they ought to be the Universal Arbiter of The Proper Boundaries of Speech.

But it’s his final clause that should strike readers with an eerie sense of familiarity.

making historically marginalized voices feel comfortable enough in the public square to be their authentic selves, to exist honestly and speak their own truths.

More than a decade ago, lawprof Danielle Citron put on a symposium at Concurring Opinions made this very argument.

Many participatory sectors of the Internet are dominated by aggressive bullies, nasty haters and monetizing opportunists. It’s hard to tell whether they constitute a numeric majority, but the geography of the Internet allows a small number of people to scorch vast swaths of earth with surprisingly little effort. There is no currently such thing as the “safe spaces on the web where those with unpopular views can exchange ideas without fear of retribution” that Frank Pasquale calls for. Not even here. The folks running this symposium decided not to facilitate comments on CCR related posts here at Concurring Opinions, but they have no control over the conversations that take place other places, which may be intractably linked to this blog via hyperlinks and search engine results. I’m doubtful that the architecture of the Internet can be changed to provide the benefits of connectivity without simultaneously facilitating engagement or intervention by bad actors.

And yes, I was one of those “bad actors” who wouldn’t let them have their circle jerk unmolested by unsupportive voices. But what was the point?

The gist of Danielle Citron’s theory begins with the proposition that woman and minorities are disproportionately victimized by vicious anonymous online attacks and threats of real world harm, which both extends beyond mere bad speech into a metaphysical punch in the face and the inhibition of free expression by the victims due to the excess of free expression by the attackers. This is supported by anecdotal evidence and studies of dubious value, though most of the symposium participants have accepted this part of the proposition without any critical thought, since it’s consistent with their sensibilities and academic orthodoxy.  It’s a value judgment, and few in the Academy are inclined to be naysayers whenever women’s victimization is at stake.

Back then, in 2009, the marginalized were women, whose feelings were hurt by disapproving commentary and thus felt “silenced” when speaking their minds because men were saying mean things in reply to “their truth,” although it wasn’t yet called “their truth.” And back then, no male prof could challenge their cries of hurt feelings for fear of being labeled a misogynist and becoming an overnight pariah in the legal academy.

But those were quaint times, and now the Citrons and Ann Bartows are the Karens of the world, and the marginalized are established by the fluctuating victim hierarchy, which puts Karens just above white cis males and no one else. Or are they really the J.K. Rowlings rather than the Karens?

There are precious few trans people in positions of power and influence, and treating Rowling’s view as an odious-but-worth-debating view makes it less likely that trans people feel comfortable existing in the public eye. Why should trans people have to treat anti-trans voices as legitimate argumentative partners when no one would, for instance, expect a Jewish writer (like me) to debate a neo-Nazi?

Rowling’s position is that “transgender people should be able to live, love and dress as they please, but that no one should be penalized for affirming the reality of biological sex.” Where does that leave the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative when they complain about women’s feelings while transgender people have it so much worse that Zack is reduced to argumentum ad Hitlerum?

When it was women complaining that men said mean things that hurt their feelings, thus “silencing” them because they couldn’t speak out without fear of disagreement, as they believed to be their right, it’s now devolved into the silencing of the majority for the comfort of the tiniest minority, lest their civil rights be denied by words and ideas that defy “their truth.”

Citron once thought she got to draw the line. Beauchamp believes he gets to draw the line. And each was happy to have a conversation about where the line should be drawn provided everyone else shut up and acquiesced. After all, it’s just about line drawing, and the most marginalized and fragile get to dictate what the entirety of society is permitted to say or think lest their truth be denied. The idea isn’t new. The outcome won’t be any better this time. Are you comfortable yet?