Substack Stands Strong Against Left’s Anti-Free Speech Pressure

The leaders of media platform Substack responded to leftist censorship pressure with a strong defense of free speech. “I wouldn’t want someone to pick out my clothes for me, much less my ideas,” Substack executive Lulu Cheng Meservey said.

The Washington Post wrote an absurd piece attacking Substack for its pro-free speech approach. The Post accused the platform of being “a hub for controversial and often misleading perspectives about the coronavirus.” Yahoo! News, The Guardian, and The Daily Beast piled on Substack too, citing the leftist Center for Countering Digital Hate. Leftist Clinton Foundation Vice Chair Chelsea Clinton also complained about “Anti-vaxx grift going strong” on Substack. Substack responded by standing firm for free speech. “At Substack, we don’t make moderation decisions based on public pressure or PR considerations,” tweeted Substack Vice President of Communications Meservey, according to Fox News. “An important principle for us is defending free expression, even for stuff we personally dislike or disagree with. We understand principles come at a cost.”

Meservey said she was “proud” of this free speech stance, and that “open debate is not always comfortable,” but it is necessary. “Who should be the arbiter of what’s true and good and right?” Meservey asked. She noted no generation is “infallible.” Meservey pointed out a key issue with Big Tech censorship: “People should be allowed to decide for themselves, not have a tech executive decide for them.”

Substack is specifically meant to be a platform for individuals with widely differing views, including controversial views. “While we have content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for...

Read More HERE