All the Substackers actually worth hating
Substack's neo-Nazi and white supremacist problem
There is a scene in one of my all time favorite movies, The Blues Brothers, where the two brothers are stuck in traffic because the Illinois Nazi Party won a court battle and were allowed to assemble and march publicly. (The Blues Brothers is the best musical of all time, I’ll fight anyone who says different!)
Anytime I hear about Nazis doing what Nazis do my response is usually, “I hate Illinois Nazis,” and I think about Elwood forcing them to jump off this bridge. In other words, they are a joke to me—pathetic, hate filled idiots who end up being laughed at and all wet.
When I joined Substack I knew there was a Nazi problem here. But I am staunchly in favor of free speech, and I am certain when we start to censor one group it could quickly snowball and the censors could come for any one of us. Though I think free speech has its limits. The Substack Nazis and white supremacists routinely cross over those limits and the only way to stop them is to make it clear that we fucking hate Illinois Nazis.
The title of this piece is a callout to Kathrine Elaine’s two hilarious articles about the Substackers she hates. I’m happy to report I fit squarely into several of her categories. Each of the articles has some sprinkling of truth, All the Substackers I hate and All the Substackers I hate 2.0. Both have been big hits on Substack for good reason, they are hilarious. I’m sure she’ll “hate” this post for falling into the too political category, sorry Kathrine but I just gotta.
I was scrolling through her comments on her 2.0 article and saw this little gem.
I am in no way saying she agrees with or endorses this, it was just the first time I’d seen the swastika here on Substack, call me sheltered. In fact, when I let Kathrine know about this fool posting a comment on her article she immediately deleted it. She had the same reaction I did, we both thought it was a joke, an extremely edgy parody Substack. Boy was that wrong. How this neo-Nazi saw anything in Kathrine’s article that comes close to advocating fascism is beyond me.
Most of the notes and articles that NatSocToday posts are what you would expect but some incite violence which removes all free speech protections and violates Substack’c Content Guidelines.
Free Speech
By now, if you’ve read my other rants, you know I try to give you some actual value rather than just my unhinged opinions. So here I want to tell you a bit about our first amendment to the Constitution protecting the rights to speech, assembly, religion, and the press. The amendment does a hell of a lot:
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.
Constitutional Law was one of my favorite classes in Law School. What seems obvious to me now that I didn’t understand until I took this class is the first amendment protects us from governmental overreach. A private entity, like Substack, is under no obligation to provide these protections. This is something that the whiners who didn’t like Twitter banning hate speech didn’t understand, namely Elon Musk. The flip side is also true, a fact my left leaning friends need to understand, a private entity is not obligated to remove content even if it violates the legal limits of freedom of speech.
Incitement to violence is one such limitation on free speech and Substack claims it is against their Content Guidelines to publish. But are they enforcing this?
Incitement to violence
There are two Supreme Court cases that provide the broad limits on free speech when it comes to dangerous speech. In the 1919 case, Schenk v. United States, the Court held that speech presenting a “clear and present danger” of immediate harm could be restricted. Think about the yelling “fire” in a crowded theater example, which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in that case:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
The Court then refined this limitation on free speech in the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, which established that free speech advocating illegal activity can only be curtailed by the government if the speech 1) is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action; and 2) it must be likely to incite or produce such action. (I’ve added the emphasis.)
The Brandenburg case was about a KKK leader who had been convicted in Ohio for speaking at a rally. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction and found that his speech was abstract advocacy of force or violation of the law which is protected by the first amendment.
The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
The problem with Substack neo-Nazi’s and white supremacists is that they are often inciting violence which their readers are likely to carry out. It is not abstract advocacy.
Not abstract hate
The NatSocToday Substack is your basic white supremacy, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, anti-Semitic trash. The hold the contradictory position that the Holocaust is a hoax and that it should happen again. They aren’t the smartest bunch.
There is a big fixation on Epstein being the quintessential Jewish pedophile and it’s where they separate from Trump, who they see as too cozy with the Jewish community. The cognitive dissonance they suffer when grappling with Trump’s grandchildren and daughter being Jewish must be excruciating.
If you dive deep enough into their crap, not very fun, you find things like this:
These are all clearly calls to violence. There is very little room to argue any of it is an abstract endorsement of violence. “Kill ‘em. Kill ‘em all.”
Substack’s stance on hate groups
There have been a number of outside articles written about Substack’s stance when it comes to neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups.1 There have been open letters to Substack both in favor of banning Nazi’s, like this one from Ken White in 2023, and open letters asking Substack to stay out of the censorship business, like this one from Elle Griffin in 2023. For a longer article on the subject check out the June 2024 InkStick Media piece, How Deep Does Substack’s Far-Right Problem Run, Really?
What I’m advocating is a middle ground, but one that Substack needs to actually enforce. If the language used in a post by a Substacker calls for violence, it should be removed from the platform and there should be consequences for the author, suspension or outright ban. This would follow Substack’s own Content Guidelines which state:
Hate
Substack cannot be used to publish content or fund initiatives that incite violence based on protected classes. Offending behavior includes credible threats of physical harm to people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability or medical condition. (emphasis added.)
It really is that simple.
What can we do
Start by calling it out when you see it. If you are somehow confronted by hateful speech that crosses the line into an incitement to violence report it. There are three dots next to every Note that gives you a menu with an option to report. You can also go to this page and fill out a report on an article, or email tos@substackinc.com.
In that report write something like this:
This post has hate speech which violates the Substack Content Guidelines because it is a credible incitement to violence based on a protected class.
The next thing you can do is probably the easiest thing: block these accounts and delete any comments they leave on your posts. Let any author know if you see one of them posting comments on their articles. One tool I’d love to have is the ability to block a Substack and simultaneously block anyone who subscribes to it.
There is zero reason to engage with these hate-mongers, they are beyond redemption and it would frankly be a waste of your time.
Ok now back to some fiction writing!
-Javi
If you enjoyed this rant, check out:
Cover photo by Mika Baumeister on Unsplash
Substack Cofounder Defends Commercial Relationships with Nazis, Tech Policy Press, December 21, 2023; Substack says it will not ban Nazis or extremist Speech, New York Times, December 22, 2023; Substack faces user revolt over anti-censorship stance on neo-Nazis, The Guardian, January 3, 2024; Pressure Builds on newsletter company Substack to stop paying Nazi writers, NBC news, January 7, 2024; Substack removes multiple newsletters including pro-Nazi content, CNN, January 9, 2024;
Hah, I'm literally one of the people she's talking about in both lists. Along with everyone I clique with on Substack. (We're the gangsters.)
I liked your article. I received a lot of hate mail and stuff like that from MAGA types on my former substack account so I have more experience with this kind of crap than I would like. By the way, The Rocky Horror Picture Show was the best movie musical of all time, although I will allow the Blues Brothers was a close second. If you are consumed with the need to fight with me over this culturally sensitive issue look up Norm DePlume on the net and I'm sure you'll find my address. Ha ha ha! I am smug in my confidence that I am safe from your retribution.