Some Thoughts on Netflix’s Support for Free Expression

Manhattan Contrarian contributor Jane Menton is back from maternity leave!  (FM)

A month or so ago, Netflix CEO Ted Serandos took a lot of criticism from the LGBTQIA+ community for saying Netflix was going to support its creators’ right to free speech. The criticism began with a Netflix special starring comedian Dave Chappelle, containing humor that some have claimed is offensive to gay and trans people. It continued with the release of Ricky Gervais’s new special Supernature, which features similar critiques of gender ideology. Serandos’s response to employee complaints included sending an internal memo last month stating that if employees had a problem with Netflix’s “breadth of content,” then perhaps they should find a job elsewhere.

In an interview with Maureen Dowd for The New York Times, published May 28, Serandos stated that standing up for free expression “wasn’t hard” because a creator like Dave Chappelle is “by all measure, the comedian of our generation, the most popular comedian on Netflix for sure.” These comments come after a turbulent first quarter in 2022, in which Netflix suffered a dramatic stock price drop and loss of subscribers. 

With Netflix seeming to flounder, some might conclude that that shows Serandos’s stand for free expression was a risky business move with a negative payoff. Instead, I would argue that it’s the opposite: he’s receiving market signals that his audience is most interested in the content he’s being warned not to publish. He said it himself: Dave Chapelle — and Ricky Gervais — are his best gets and his best bets for his business.

Companies have seemingly become more and more eager to take political positions, usually those of the left.  But we should recognize that sometimes taking such positions can have likely positive effects for the corporate bottom line.  Here we are in the middle of Pride Month, where every large company – from Nabisco to BMW – is posting a rainbow flag on some commercial object. While some might view that as a political act to show solidarity with the LGBTQIA+ community, another way of seeing it is as a marketing gimmick, an easy way to appeal to some additional customers without offending existing ones. And in fact, the cheap marketing ploy has become so obvious that some members of the  LGBTQIA+ community have been quick to make fun of it (here is a Buzzfeed list headlined “This Pride Month I’m Partnering With…,” mocking the trend). 

The ubiquity of the flag and the partnerships is a strong indication that support for Pride Month has become culturally mainstream in the U.S. The same companies that sport rainbow logos in the U.S. wouldn’t dream of doing that in countries that are less supportive of (or openly hostile to) the LGBTQ community. See the Babylon Bee roundup on company logos in the U.S. vs. the middle east here. In many ways, that’s the beauty of the market: it’s a bottom-up indicator and it gives clear signals to business managers about culture. 

Radical gender ideology – for example, the idea that gender is nothing but a social construct – is something quite different.  While corporate marketing to lesbians and gays can be seen as a market-driven bottom up phenomenon, our society is currently inundated with gender ideology activism that is sought to be imposed from the top down. It comes from places like academic institutions, professional societies, government bureaucracies, and, most recently, elementary school teachers. It is not uncommon for a handful of activists to put immense pressure on company leaders, as with Netflix, and try to force them to abide by a specific narrative. These activists have asked for censorship. They have attempted to cancel popular performers. They have threatened the principle of Free Speech. And it often feels like they are winning because they have found themselves in positions of influence in our country’s elite institutions. 

And then there’s Netflix, which, in evaluating what might be best for business, chose to ignore them. 

I watched the Ricky Gervais special. It was good, but not as good as his first special, Humanity. But I would have watched it even if it was horrible, just to add my view to his ratings. I want to reinforce Netflix’s suspicion that there is an American ‘silent majority.’ One that is willing to support artists’ right to express their opinions – even the offensive ones. And, furthermore, if those artists are the most popular ones on Netflix’s entire platform, that might be the market’s way of signaling that many Americans are unwilling to accept the narrative we’re being force-fed about gender. If so, it’s one of the few signals the market has left.

Serandos may be personally principled – I have no idea – but I doubt he would let Netflix take an unpopular stance if he believed it would put Netflix’s profits in jeopardy. He’s following business signals. Which means if there’s anyone we should thank, it’s those of our fellow Americans who have not yet succumbed to the bullshit, even if they don’t shout about it.