Matt Cooper: Paddy Cosgrave’s downfall was proof that freedom of speech is just fantasy

The idea that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” has been tested in recent weeks, most notably in the case of Paddy Cosgrave and Web Summit and his views about the Israeli/Hamas conflict.

But equally so has been the expression “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. Commenting, or not, on what’s happening in Gaza and why has become the trickiest of lines to navigate for many corporates and their bosses. Sitting on the fence doesn’t necessarily cut it either.

As we know, the tech world decided that Cosgrave’s publicly expressed point of view in relation to Gaza – one that most people in Ireland would probably support as reasonable – was not acceptable.

Many high profile participants, both corporate and individual, cancelled their participation in his November trade show and conference event in Lisbon in retaliation for his publicly expressed opinions.

It was a concerning exercise of power and an illustration as to why so many corporate bosses may be reluctant to express any opinion on matters of political and societal controversy for fear of what may result.

But Cosgrave was not alone in his experience since the murderous Hamas attack on Israel and the murderous response in attacking Gaza that has caused a multiple of the original number of deaths, including babies and children.

In the US, Maha Dakhil, the highest-ranking female agent in the Creative Artists Agency, resigned from the company’s internal board after posting what were called inflammatory remarks on Instagram that allegedly accused Israel of committing genocide.

She apologised but will continue to represent her clients, who include Natalie Portman, Tom Cruise and Reese Witherspoon, which is a better outcome for her than Cosgrave’s.

Someone else outside of Ireland who retained a job but who was demoted because of her social media posts, was Kitty Laing, now the former head of comedy at talent agency United Artists.

She retains Katherine Ryan, James Corden, Keira Knightley and Jamie Demetriou among her clients. She briefly deleted her account on X after being called out for allegedly offensive social media posts about the Hamas attack – which others said appeared to depict the victims as legitimate military targets – before returning to apologise.

Her agency ordered a 'thorough investigation' into the matter as a pile-on of criticism ensued and said “these are not the views of United Agents Ltd.”

Her climbdown saved her, partially at least. “With hindsight, I realize how naive I have been and that much of the information on social media surrounding the conflict is unsubstantiated and hurtful. I should have taken time to consider this beforehand,” Laing said.

Back here in Ireland, at a less senior level, Courtney Carey, an employee in Dublin for over four years at an Israeli-owned tech company called Wix, one of about 500 the company has here, was fired because, using LinkedIn, she described Israel as a “terrorist state” and criticised the “indiscriminate” bombing of Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces.

She wrote that Israel had “cut off food, water and electricity” to the Gaza Strip, as well as devastating infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. She argued said the “root cause of this violence is a Zionist ideology”, which “denies Palestinian identity”.

Not surprisingly perhaps the Israeli owned company perceived this as a verbal attack from within. “In the midst of this, for all the Israelis to be called terrorists by someone they perceive as a team-mate and a colleague is unfathomable, unexplainable and unacceptable,” the company’s Dublin boss wrote to staff.

Carey, who has received widespread political support in Ireland, including from An Taoiseach and An Tánaiste, has spoken of taking an unfair dismissal action: should she go ahead it would likely lead to the most intriguing of hearings and outcomes as the law would be tested to see if it is in concert with public opinion.

The easy and obvious thing is to say nothing. But sometimes that doesn’t work either. The Writers Guild of America – which was unified for months in it strike against the Hollywood studio giants – has experienced its own bitter division arising from the lack of a public statement condemning the Hamas attack on Israel.

Eight days after that attack a group of screenwriters signed an open letter asking why its representative body had not issued a statement of condemnation, as other major Hollywood unions had issued such statements. The Writers Guild previously publicly supported the Black Lives Matter movement and #MeToo campaign, but remained silent “when terrorists invaded Israel to murder, rape and kidnap Jews”, it was alleged.

Meredith Stiehm, the president of the Writers Guild of America West, sent an email to members. “Like the membership itself, the board’s viewpoints are varied, and we found consensus out of reach,” she wrote in the letter, which was reported by The New York Times. “For these reasons, we have decided not to comment publicly.”

“When celebrities speak out, it sends an important message to their tens of millions of followers that this is the right side to be on,” Jonathan Greenblatt, director of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote in an opinion piece carried in The Hollywood Reporter. “In light of how distorting social media algorithms can present the world,” he added, “it’s even more important for these voices to cut through.”

In recent years many companies have felt compelled to make gestures and changes to prove inclusivity, making some happier but infuriating others.

Disney, for example, irked conservatives when it “rethemed” the Splash Mountain ride to disassociate it from its inspiration, the 1946 film Song of the South, in which a formerly enslaved man tells African folk tales. Disney World also removed a scene depicting pirates selling women in an auction from its Pirates of the Caribbean attraction. It cut the greeting “ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls” from some of its fireworks shows to be more inclusive.

Then, at the prompting of employees, and perhaps somewhat reluctantly, the company joined the debate on the so-called “don’t say gay” bill introduced by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

This law prohibited classroom instruction and discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity in certain elementary school grades and later was extended to high school. The law was celebrated by conservatives and derided by LGBTQ activists and many schoolteachers.

When Disney took the side against the law, DeSantis opportunistically engaged in a long-running campaign, not just to limit the autonomy of Disney World, one of his state’s largest employers, but to prove to others around the US – to suit his presidential ambitions – that he would confront the “woke” agenda.

As the likes of Meta, Google and Intel led the charge in abandoning their participation at WebSummit, Apple has been involved in its own cancellation.

In the last week it has been reported by The New York Times that it has ended its partnership with American comedian Jon Stewart for the Apple TV+ streaming show, The Problem with Jon Stewart.

As host of The Daily Show from 1999 to 2015, he turned a low-rated Comedy Central late-night series into a must-see each evening, one of the US’s best-known media and political critics. His Apple show, over two seasons, hasn’t had quite the same impact because it deals more with themes than events of the day, although various clips from episodes have gone viral.

But there may also have been domestic audience issues at play, with Apple TV+ serving nearly 20 million customers in the US alone. Given that Stewart had not been afraid to confront the topics of gun control and gender identity, it is not unreasonable to assume that Stewart – the former Daily Show host who is Jewish – might also have sought to turn his critical eye on Israel’s behaviour in Gaza in the series and also the 2024 US presidential election race.

It's clear so that Cosgrave’s case is not unique, but he doesn’t seem to have handled the aftermath of his initial post sensitively enough. Perhaps that was because he never previously had encountered consequences for his often-extraordinary interventions into domestic public discourse, where it seemed there was rarely a windmill at which he didn’t tilt.

It was never quite clear why he behaved as he did but when he developed a penchant for being outspoken, he seemingly revelled in it. It appeared to appeal to his ego. Many some saw it as part of his “branding”, an apparent authenticity, something that often gets celebrated as separating the interesting in business from the not-so-interesting. Those who supported him on social media, even before the tweet that blew him up, lapped up that outspokenness and anti-establishment posturing, supporting him for “calling it, as he sees it”, being “brave enough” to say what he “feels” despite the potential consequences. Others saw it as a failure to mature from the type of positions that entertain at student union debates at Trinity College.

It didn’t help either when he indulged in conspiracy theories or put around incorrect stories such as that of a cover-up of the deaths of four nurses in the early days of Covid-19. It meant that when he needed support few were prepared to offer it.

Cosgrave became the victim of a pile-on, of the type some of his comments about Irish politicians have provoked, hoist by his own petard. In a second post, in which he botched an attempt to mollify his critics, he argued that “you can’t be cancelled for wanting peace and adhering to international human rights law. Solidarity with innocent civilians on all sides. I’m not going to relent.” Within hours he relented – issuing a statement in which he “unreservedly” condemned Hamas’s “evil, disgusting and monstrous” attack – but it was too late.

Momentum ran against him. It almost became a race among the tech companies to be seen to be ahead of others in cancelling their visits to the event. While some of the anger expressed, especially by investors in the venture capital with Israeli connections, was genuine, it must be asked if some of those who rushed to cancel Web Summit did so because they felt that they had to be seen to do so.

Cosgrave’s departure as the business’s chief executive doesn’t seem to mean that those who went out will come back in; his 81% shareholding remains an issue for them.

It has left other companies with a dilemma as to whether or not they should continue to attend and it will be interesting to see how many of the 70,000 who bought tickets will want to be seen in Lisbon.

It has also left those who have been asked to host or speak at events, especially as replacements for those who have pulled out, with very difficult decisions to make: would it be a good or bad thing to be seen prominently given what has happened? How will attendance be regarded by those who decided not to go and with whom attendees might want to do business or get investment?

It may be of less significance than what is happening to the people of Gaza but it is not unimportant.