What Would Captain Kirk Do?
By Dan Brown Does Captain Kirk believe in free speech, or would he suppress hateful speech to make sure positivity prevails? That question has been running through my mind this week after Paramount + and CBS Studios announced they are cancelling the newest Star Trek series, Starfleet Academy. The show was savaged by older fans who found it too “woke.” (Full disclosure: I have seen only a few clips from the first season, so I don’t have an opinion on it, which doesn’t matter to the discussion at hand.) Starfleet Academy had its season finale on March 12 after debuting in January. A second season is already in the can, so its sophomore instalment will be its last, whenever it airs. “Across its 10-episode first season, it has failed to rank on the Nielsen Top 10 streaming viewership charts,” Variety reported. So Starfleet Academy was killed in the cradle. And fans have been reacting all week. Some hated the program for its apparent progressive politics. Some loved it for that same reason. Others argued the series hadn’t even found its voice yet. I do know it features many actors I love, like Holly Hunter, Paul Giamatti and Tatiana Maslany. I belong to a few Star Trek fan groups on Facebook and I’ve seen fans sounding off in the last few days. As you might expect, they have strong opinions. On one particular page, which I’m not going to identify, fans were warned by the admins that hateful comments about the cancelled series wouldn’t be tolerated, nor would trolling or malicious celebrations of Starfleet Academy’s demise. They warned members to keep it civil or their toxic comments would be deleted, and repeat offenders would be banned from participating. Which, of course, set off a crapstorm. Many members did not appreciate being told what tone of voice they should use. Some took the caution as their cue to leave the group. In subsequent posts, the admins tried to clarify the restrictions they were imposing, but the damage had already been done. I noticed one sentiment cropped up several times in the comments: Preventing people from commenting freely was not a very Star Trek thing to do, some argued. In fact, it runs counter to the spirit at the core of the Gene Roddenberry-created franchise, they said. Me, I was taken aback by the preemptive strike on possible Starfleet Academy bashing. And since then, I’ve been turning it over in my mind. What’s better for a fan group: To let passionate enthusiasts have their say without placing any limits on their speech, or to weed out divisive comments so that it’s a positive space? What would Captain Kirk say, if he was in charge of this Facebook group, or in charge of the entire internet? Because it's a much bigger issue. I like to think Kirk, the Enterprise captain I grew up watching, would lead by example, but wouldn’t outright censor anybody. Roddenberry himself didn’t live long enough to see the internet flower into the global communications hub it is today. But he certainly understood what Star Trek meant to him. Here’s an oft-quoted statement the Great Bird of the Galaxy made about his intent in creating the show: “Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms . . . If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there.” So if you’re trying to create a utopia, is it better to let public discourse flow freely, or to weed out toxicity? I know what William Shatner (as opposed to the character he played) would do: He’d find a way to monetize the debate. But how do you think Kirk would respond? I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments! Dan Brown has covered pop culture for more than 33 years as a journalist and also moderates L.A. Mood’s monthly graphic-novel group.
