Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
Doesn’t anyone but me recognize these tactics as those of the “Brown shirts” from Nazi Germany? Not allowing some to speak, and accosting those who do, simply because you do not agree with what they say? How do these actions honor the freedom of speech upon which the first amendment is based?
Ted Cruz latest Republican accosted after Maxine Waters’ call for confrontation
California, in an effort to thwart online election disinformation, has decided “…to monitor and counteract false or misleading information regarding the electoral process that is published online…”
The big question: Who decides what is “disinformation”? In this new law, it is the Secretary of State. What if the California Secretary of State decides that “disinformation” includes opinions that are just not popular with the Democratic powers within California?
If you want to see how much of a problem it can be when the government (or, more appropriately, the party in power) has the ability to control speech, you only have to look as far as the California Attorney General’s office. In California, the attorney general is charged writing ballot titles and descriptions of any proposed ballot measures. The party in power doesn’t like your ballot proposition? All they have to do is write a misleading or inflammatory ballot title and description. Here, here and here are but a few classic examples of how this power can be exploited towards political ends.
Now – think about how this new “election disinformation” law can be abused in the same manner…
Getting worried yet? You should be.
I am troubled by the New York Times anonymous op-ed piece regarding President Trump. Not because of what it contains, but because of the inability to defend oneself against such an anonymous attack. The piece supposedly comes from a “senior official in the Trump administration”, but gives no other information on the source. Is this person partisan? Where they appointed by a previous administration? Do their loyalties lay with another party or politician? Are they in fact privy to the kinds of information and knowledge sufficient to support their claims in this piece? And just what is a “senior official”, anyway?
How do you defend yourself against such an attack without bringing to light the motives and claims of the attacker? And how is that possible with an anonymous author? How would you see this case if it was you being disparaged by an anonymous foe that you could neither question or refute?
Even if every word turns out to be true, I will never again pick up a New York Times. It not the story that is upsetting; it’s that there is no recourse for the accused, and that is simply not right.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has banned the press from several campaign events she’s been holding. The thought that first comes to mind is: “What is she hiding?”.
For all his rants about the press by Trump, at least they have access to his white house. To ban all members of the press seems very provocative, particularly since we’ve seen other socialist regimes begin their path to power by restricting the press.
Very scary… I’m just sayin’…
Some have been applying pressure on social media companies to limit hateful or divisive speech. Unfortunately, this means that someone has to have the power to decide which speech is hateful or divisive. The government may not make such a decision; they are restricted by the 1st amendment. But what happens when the aforesaid pressure comes from members of the legislature? What happens when such legislators have made clear what speech they believe should be limited? What happens when the decision made by social media companies on what to censor is driven by the threat of regulation by these very same legislators? Is it really the social media companies censoring their own networks, or the government through the threat of regulation?
Today, social media companies have taken a stance to limit what “they” consider to be hateful or divisive speech by significantly censoring the content of Alex Jones InfoWars on-line presence [CNet, Business Insider, Mac Daily News, Fox News], an alt-right leaning “news” source (I use the term “news” here loosely). I’m no fan of Alex Jones, but I don’t need Apple, Facebook, or Google/YouTube telling me to whom I can or should listen. Nor do I need Diane Feinstein or other legislators coming to my rescue.
My greatest concern is that these censorship acts are being driven by the threat of regulation. We should all be leery of such possible attempts to end-run the constitutional protections of the 1st amendment.
People are (or should be) smart enough to know to whom they should listen; it is not necessary for anyone to be silenced, no matter how heinous you believe their speech. That doesn’t stop some; this Fox News article identifies a businessman who has been the target of anti-free-speech advocates who have attempted to shut down his business for voicing support for some of President Trump’s policies. At least one report claims that the protestors went so far as to throw feces at the establishment. Even if you disagree with Trump’s policies, this action is unconscionable; how would you feel if those who support your candidate were shut down by ranting picketers throwing feces? How do you want to be treated when popular opinion shifts and you find that it is your opinion being attacked?
It gets worse: The local chamber of commerce decided to revoke the business’ membership for the owner exercising their constitutionally-guaranteed right to express their support for certain policies of the current administration. Doesn’t that make the chamber of commerce a political, rather than business, organization? I wonder if that will affect their tax status….
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any attempt by the government to silence people by restricting the means of speech is an end run around the constitution. Notably, it has been the left leading the charge on his front. Here’s a write-up from the Cato Institute on yet another example:
New Bill Would Ban Internet Bots (and Speech)
If you want to see how a political regime limits speech to push through it’s own agenda, here’s a prime example from New York’s own Governor Andrew Cuomo. From his press release:
“I am directing the Department of Financial Services to urge insurers and bankers statewide to determine whether any relationship they may have with the NRA or similar organizations sends the wrong message to their clients and their communities…”
In my opinion this is a thinly-veiled threat that doing business with the NRA could cause you grief in New York. Yes, I know, I know… he didn’t actually say that explicitly, but before you say that’s not his intent think about this: why did he have to make this statement at all? For what possible reason would such a statement by the state be made if not to intimidate someone with whom they disagree?
Using regulatory power to intimidate and silence your opposition is wrong, no matter who’s side you’re on. Also, remember this: they are not just silencing the NRA; they are silencing every individual member for whom the NRA speaks (5 million of them, including me). What if they used the same method in an attempt to silence a specific labor union? The union speaks for its members, just like the NRA speaks for theirs. How would you feel if it was your voice that was silenced?
(You can find more on this topic over at Overlawyered.com.)
A federal judge in Manhattan has ruled that Donald Trump, via his account @realDonaldTrump, has no right to block critical users from his Twitter feed. The judge’s position is that Trump’s twitter feed constitutes a “public forum” for government communication, and so blocking specific users infringes in their constitutional right to free speech. I disagree (not that it matters…) for the following reasons:
1) It is Trump’s personal Twitter account. I find it hard to believe that you give up your own rights to free speech and free association just because you’ve been elected President of the United States. If that’s the case then I don’t think I want to be President anymore…
2) Free speech – including that critical of the President – does not require the President (or even the government) provide you with a platform from which to speak. It’s up to you to find such a platform on your own.
3) Anyone blocked from a Twitter account is not blocked from Twitter; they can express themselves any way they want on their own Twitter feed, including being critical of the President. Their ability to speak is not limited in any way except that they can’t speak on the presidents’ Twitter feed.
Does this ruling mean that every government web site must accept and post critical comments? Can Trump make his Twitter feed read-only, like a typical Web site, to prevent having to post the caustic and vitriolic comments supplied by his fervent critics? I don’t know, but in any event I hope Trump appeals this decision. The thought of having to share a Twitter feed with your worst enemies just doesn’t seem right…
PS: The suggestion that the Twitter “mute” function be used instead does not solve the problem; while the muter will no longer see the mutee’s posts and replies, the world will (and on the muter’s own twitter feed!).
I’ve repeatedly expressed my concerns (here, here, and here for example) that social media giants (Facebook, Google, etc.) could exert influence over the masses by restricting the use of their platforms under the guise of preventing hateful or provocative speech. The problem with such restrictions is that it requires someone – with their own opinion – to determine what speech is allowed. Here is a recent example of such behavior, where social media platforms are effectively influencing a foreign election by not allowing certain speech.
Is it a restriction on free speech when the means of speech – such as the social media platforms cited above – are limited to those whose speech is deemed “acceptable”? To be fair, it is generally within the rights of such companies to limit speech; after all, they are not the government (of whom the 1st amendment was meant to limit). Free speech does not require that your opponent give you a platform from which to speak; you’re on your own for that. However, when such platforms become the de facto means of speech we should carefully consider the impact of these restrictions.