Archive for the ‘Individual Rights’ Category.
Yesterday, the FBI said that Hillary Clinton should not be prosecuted because, though she clearly violated laws about management of confidential information, she had no "intent" to do so. Two thoughts
- Even if she had no intent to violate secrecy laws, she did - beyond a reasonable doubt - have intent to violate public transparency and FOIA laws. She wanted to make it hard, or impossible, for Conservative groups to see her communications, communications that the public has the right to see. In violating this law with full intent, she also inadvertently violated secrecy laws. I don't consider this any different than being charged for murder when your bank robbery inadvertently led to someone's death.
- If politicians are going to grant each other a strong mens rea (guilty mind or criminal intent) requirements for criminal prosecution, then politicians need to give this to the rest of us as well. Every year, individuals and companies are successfully prosecuted for accidentally falling afoul of some complex and arcane Federal law. Someone needs to ask Hillary where she stands on Federal mens rea reform.
Sorry, I am a bit late on this but it came out while I was out of the country. While the New York AG is going after ExxonMobil and a number of think tanks to try to prosecute them, or at least intimidate them, for their past speech on climate issues, apparently the state of New York is also going after college students who want to boycott Israel.
I have never thought much of the BDS movement -- while like most western governments Israel certainly has its flaws, I find it bizarre that the BDS movement treats Israel like it's the worst government on Earth. In particular, I am amazed that BDS folks frequently, while they condemn Israel, act as apologists for neighboring Arab nations whose human rights records are objectively far worse.
All that being said, if they don't want to have anything to do with Israel and want to advocate for others to take the same approach, they are welcome to do so in a free country. But now there is this:
Continuing Gov. Andrew Cuomo's crusade against New Yorkers who don't support Israel, state Sen. Jack Martins (R-Nassau County) wants to ban public colleges and universities from funding pro-Palestinian student groups. A new bill sponsored by Martins would require state and city schools to defund any campus organization that supports efforts to "boycott, divest from, and sanction" (BDS) Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. The BDS movement has become popular on U.S. and U.K. campuses.
Martins' bill would also prohibit the funding of campus groups that support economic boycotts of any American-allied nation, although this bit seems designed to distract from his true goal: preventing anti-Israel sentiment on campus. In an interview with the New York Daily News, Martins referred to calls to boycott Israel as "hate speech" and "anti-Semitism" and said the state legislature has "no choice but to step in and prevent taxpayer dollars being used to promote" such sentiment.
If a state institution is going to fund student groups, then it needs to do so in a viewpoint neutral manner.
The only teeny tiny good part of this story is that perhaps a few campus Leftists who want to ban everything that they consider hate speech might have an epiphany that giving the government this sort of power is a bad idea, since one can never guarantee that one's own fellow travelers are going to be writing the hate speech definitions.
Citizens United Haters, Is This Really What You Want? John Oliver Brexit Segment Forced to Air After Vote
A lot of folks, particularly on the Left, despise the Citizens United decision that said it was unconstitutional to limit third party political speech, particularly prior to an election (even if that speech was made by nasty old corporations). The case was specifically about whether the government could prevent the airing of a third-party produced and funded documentary about one of the candidates just before an election. The Supreme Court said that the government could not put in place such limits (ie "Congress shall make no law...") but Britain has no such restrictions so we can see exactly what we would get in such a regime. Is this what you want?
As Britain gears up to vote in the EU referendum later this week, broadcasters are constantly working to ensure their coverage remains impartial. One such company is Sky, which has this week been forced to delay the latest instalment of John Oliver's Last Week Tonight HBO show. Why? Because it contains a 15-minute diatribe on why the UK should remain part of Europe.
Instead of airing the programme after Game of Thrones on Sky Atlantic on Monday night, like it does usually, Sky has pushed it back until 10:10pm on Thursday, just after the polls close. Social media users are up in arms about the decision, but in reality, Sky appears to be playing everything by the book.
Sky's decision allows it to adhere to Ofcom rules that come into effect during elections and referendums. "Sky have complied with the Ofcom broadcasting restrictions at times of elections and referendums that prohibit us showing this section of the programme at this moment in time. We will be able to show it once the polls close have closed on Thursday," a Sky spokesperson told Engadget.
In March, the regulator warned broadcasters that they'd need to take care when covering May's local elections and the subsequent Brexit vote. Section Five (which focuses on Due Impartiality) and Section Six (covering Elections and Referendums) of Ofcom's Code contain guidelines that are designed stop companies like Sky from influencing the public vote. Satirical content is allowed on UK TV networks during these times, but Oliver's delivery is very much political opinion based on facts, rather than straight humour.
By the way, the fact vs. satire distinction strikes me as particularly bizarre and arbitrary.
When will folks realize that such speech limitations are crafted by politicians to cravenly protect themselves from criticism. Take that Citizens United decision. Hillary Clinton has perhaps been most vociferous in her opposition to it, saying that if President she will appoint Supreme Court judges that will overturn it. But note the specific Citizens United case was about whether a documentary critical of .... Hillary Clinton could be aired. So Clinton is campaigning that when she takes power, she will change the Constitution so that she personally cannot be criticized. And the sheeple on the Left nod and cheer as if shielding politicians from accountability is somehow "progressive."
Republicans were rightly horrified that various government agencies, including a number of state attorneys general, were harassing private entities like Exxon-Mobil and CEI over their speech about climate change. They pointed out that even if formal charges were never brought, the intrusive and public investigatory process by powerful government actors had an inherently chilling effect on free speech.
Kudos to Republicans! They are defending the free speech of private actors from government harassment.
The chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee demanded on Tuesday that Facebook explain how it handles news articles in its “trending” list, responding to a report that staff members hadintentionally suppressed articles from conservative sources.
In a letter, the chairman, Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, asked Facebook to describe the steps it was taking to investigate the claims and to provide any records about articles that its news curators had excluded or added. Mr. Thune also asked directly whether the curators had “in fact manipulated the content,” something Facebook denied in a statement on Monday.
“If there’s any level of subjectivity associated with it, or if, as reports have suggested that there might have been, an attempt to suppress conservative stories or keep them from trending and get other stories out there, I think it’s important for people to know that,” Mr. Thune told reporters on Tuesday. “That’s just a matter of transparency and honesty, and there shouldn’t be any attempt to mislead the American public.”
Ugh. What does Thune want, a revival of odious equal time rules, but now applied to the Internet? This is just stupid.
NY state attorney general (and others) pursuing potential criminal and civil charges against ExxonMobil for its climate change advocacy
US Virgin Islands AG (really) going after non-profit CEI for its climate change advocacy
Elizabeth Warren wants the SEC to ban companies from "saying whatever they want about Washington policy debates," a demand inspired by her frustration that financial firms are publicly disagreeing with her on the impact of her desired regulations
California AG Kamala Harris demanding non-profit donor lists, presumably so she can harass and intimidate the ones she does not like
California AG Kamala Harris has raided the home and seized video footage of an independent advocated/journalist who did secret sting videos of Planned Parenthood, the exact same sort of advocacy journalism pursued legally (without legal harassment) by any number of Leftish groups in California and elsewhere (I doubt Ms Harris plans to raid the home of PETA activists who trespass on farms to secretly film chicken and pig breeding).
It turns out there are strong speech protections in this country, except when you are a professional, and then there are none.
And of course, I still am fighting against a libel lawsuit meant to force me to remove this product review.
Update, add this one: Tenured Marquette professor faces termination based on blog post with which University disagrees
When the student replied that he has a right to argue his opinion, Ms. Abbate responded that “you can have whatever opinions you want but I can tell you right now, in this class homophobic comments, racist comments and sexist comments will not be tolerated. If you don’t like that you are more than free to drop this class.” The student reported the exchange to Marquette professor John McAdams, who teaches political science. Mr. McAdams also writes a blog called the Marquette Warrior, which often criticizes the Milwaukee school for failing to act in accordance with its Catholic mission.
Mr. McAdams wrote on his blog that Ms. Abbate was “using a tactic typical among liberals now. Opinions with which they disagree are not merely wrong, and are not to be argued against on their merits, but are deemed ‘offensive’ and need to be shut up.” His blog went viral, and Ms. Abbate received vicious emails. She has since left Marquette.
But now Marquette is going after Mr. McAdams. In December 2014, the school sent him a letter suspending his teaching duties and banning him from campus while it reviewed his “conduct” related to the blog post. “You are to remain off campus during this time, and should you need to come to campus, you are to contact me in writing beforehand to explain the purpose of your visit, to obtain my consent and to make appropriate arrangements for that visit,” Dean Richard Holz wrote.
Lol, the university is going to prove he was wrong to write that universities avoid dialog in favor of saying "shut up" by telling him to ... shut up or be fired.
By the way, since nowadays it seems that supporting someone's free speech rights is treated the same as agreeing with that person, I will remind folks that having led a pro gay marriage ballot initiative briefly in Arizona, I am unlikely to agree with someone who thinks it should be banned. But so what? I would have absolutely no problem arguing with such a person in a rational way, something that faculty member Ms. Abbate seemed incapable of doing. While I might disagree with him on any number of issues, Professor McAdams was totally right to call her out. Besides, is the Left's goal really to take all opinion with which they disagree and drive it underground? Force folks underground and you never know what will emerge some day. Things like.... Trump supporters.
It is amazing to me that universities have become the least viable place in the US to raise and discuss controversial issues in the light of day.
The ACLU has always been an important but imperfect organization. Historically, its biggest problem IMO has been its Stalinist origins and its resulting complete silence on, even at times hostility towards, property rights. But it was always wonderfully absolutist in protecting free speech. One of my first blog posts, which I can't seem to find, 10+ years ago was a post congratulating the ACLU to the distasteful but necesary task of defending the free speech rights of neo-Nazis.
Unfortunately, the rising opposition to free speech on the Left seems to be infecting the ACLU. Via Ronald Collins:
Wendy Kaminer is an ardent free-speech advocate; she is currently a member of the advisory board of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Ms. Kaminer Kaminer was a member of the board of the ACLU of Massachusetts from the early 1990s until June 2009. She was also a national board member of the ACLU from 1999 until her term expired in June 2006. As to the omission of any reference to protecting First Amendment free-speech freedoms in the 2016 Workplan, she stated:
I’m not at all surprised that the ACLU’s 2016 work plan doesn’t include an explicit commitment to protecting freedom of speech. At the national level, ACLU has been exercising its right to remain silent on key free speech issues for years, in apparent deference to progressive support for restricting speech deemed racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise exclusionary. Still, while it’s unsurprising, the ACLU’s withdrawal from free speech battles that could eventually lead the U.S. to adopt a Western European approach to regulating “hate speech” is indeed alarming. As threats to free speech intensify — on campus (thanks partly to arguably unconstitutional federal mandates) and in the remarkable tendency of some liberals to blame the victims of violence for giving offense to their murderers (remember Charlie Hebdo) — the ACLU’s timidity in protecting speech looks more and more like complicity in censoring it.
Here is how Harvey A. Silverglate, co-founder of FIRE and a former member of the Board President of the ACLU of Massachusetts, replied:
Sadly, it comes as no surprise that the national ACLU Board and Staff are nowhere to be seen in the increasingly difficult battle to protect First Amendment freedom of expression rights. This is especially so in areas where the ACLU, more and more, pursues a political or social agenda where the overriding importance of the goal transcends, in the eyes of ACLU’s leadership, the needed vitality of free speech principles neutrally and apolitically applied. Fortunately, some ACLU state affiliates still carry the free speech battle flag, but they are a diminishing army in a war that is getting more and more difficult, even though more and more important, to wage.
Apparently, several lawmakers have proposed a Federal anti-SLAPP lawsuit. This is a fabulous idea and long overdue.
I will say this is not a theoretical case for me. I have to walk softly here because I am still in litigation, but I am currently being sued for defamation by a major corporation over a review of their services I posted hear and at Yelp ( I won't name them but a quick search of my site for my being sued will get you there). The suit is pretty transparently aimed at suppressing criticism, and only because I have some independent resources have I been able to pay the legal bills so far and stick to my guns. Right or wrong has little to do with the suit -- I have every expectation of prevailing if this ever goes to trial, especially since the State of California just declared their product illegal in that state over many of the same issues I raised in my review. -- this is about making criticism of the company so expensive and scary that the average person won't attempt it.
Kevin Drum featured this chart on "reproductive rights" by state.
Since I am pretty sure most states have an unfettered right to actually reproduce, I presume the issue at hand here is the right not to reproduce using certain tools such as abortion (and certainly this is confirmed when one digs into the criteria behind these rankings).
I would like to congratulate the Left on acknowledging that any right to reproduce must include the right not to reproduce. In fact, since the scores here are driven entirely by the right not to reproduce, I would infer that Drum and the Left sees the right not to reproduce as absolutely critical to reproductive rights.
Which leads me to the following question: Would the same folks agree that a right of association implies a right not to associate? Because recent experience (e.g. with gay rights groups hounding bakers into bankruptcy because they would not make a wedding cake for a gay wedding) sure seems to imply the Left has a different attitude towards association rights.
Dear Conservatives: This Is Why We Hate All Your Civil Rights Restrictions in the Name of Fighting Terror
Because about 5 seconds after they are passed, government officials are scheming to use the laws against non-terrorists to protect themselves from criticism.
Twenty-four environmental activists have been placed under house arrest ahead of the Paris climate summit, using France’s state of emergency laws. Two of them slammed an attack on civil liberties in an interview with FRANCE 24....
The officers handed Amélie a restraining order informing her that she can no longer leave Rennes, is required to register three times a day at the local police station, and must stay at home between 8pm and 6am.
The order ends on December 12, the day the Paris climate summit draws to a close....
Citing the heightened terrorist threat, French authorities have issued a blanket ban on demonstrations – including all rallies planned to coincide with the climate summit, which Hollande is due to formally open on Monday.
This justification is about as lame as them come:
AFP news agency has had access to the restraining notices. It says they point to the “threat to public order” posed by radical campaigners, noting that security forces “must not be distracted from the task of combating the terrorist threat”.
Note that the police had absolutely no evidence that these folks were planning any violence, or even that they were planning any particular sort of protest. This was a classic "round up the usual suspects" dragnet of anyone who had made a name for themselves protesting at green causes in the past.
Postscript: Yes, I know that these protesters and I would have very little common ground on environmental issues. So what? There is nothing more important than supporting the civil rights of those with whom one disagrees.
And yes, I do have the sneaking suspicion that many of the very same people caught up in this dragnet would cheer if I and other skeptics were similarly rounded up for our speech by the government. But that is exactly the point. There are people who, if in power, would like to have me rounded up. So it is important to stand firm against any precedent allowing the government to have these powers. Else the only thing standing between me and jail is a single election.
Update: Think that last bit is overly dramatic? Think again. I can guarantee you that you have some characteristic or belief that would cause someone in the world today, and probably many people, to want to put you up against the wall if they had the power to do so. As proof, see: all of history.
Campus Progressives are becoming increasingly open about their opposition to unfettered free speech. As a minimum, they seem to want restrictions on (and thus punishments for) speech they feel disparages ethnic minorities, homosexuals, various flavors of trans-gendered people, etc. If pressed, many might extend these restrictions to other speech they don't like, e.g. climate skepticism or advocating for the Second Amendment.
What often confuses outsiders about these calls for speech restrictions is that they are generally asymmetrical -- eg it is OK to criticize Christians but not to criticize Muslims. You can impugn the motives of rich white males but not of blacks or Hispanics. Critics of these limitations will say, "aha, you are a hypocrite" but in fact Progressives are quite open about this asymmetry. They argue from a framework where everything comes back to the powerful vs. the powerless. In this framework, it is OK for the powerless to criticize the powerful, but the reverse is not allowed -- they call it "punching down". Thus the need for asymmetric speech limitations to protect the powerless from the powerful.
But this is where we get to a massive contradiction. Because whoever is in a position to enforce speech limitations is always going to be the person with power. By definition. The powerless don't write and succesfully enforce speech codes, or else if they do, we now have to call them powerful. And historically, people in power always use speech limitations to protect their own power. That is why the First Amendment exists, to protect minorities of any sort from the power of the majority. If historically disenfranchised people suddenly start making speech codes stick that protect them from criticism, it only means that the in-group and out-group tags have been shifted and the new in-group is acting just like all the other in-groups have in the past. That is why we don't rely on assurances of good behavior by people in power, we try to circumscribe them with Constitutional limitations.
Even before the current unpleasantness, Gawker was always vile. Here is Adam Weinstein in Gawker arguing that people who disagree with him should be jailed. Incredibly, Weinstein has been held up in certain quarters as a voice of moderation and reasonableness in the current Gawker brouhaha
Those [climate] denialists should face jail. They should face fines. They should face lawsuits from the classes of people whose lives and livelihoods are most threatened by denialist tactics...
'm talking about Rush and his multi-million-dollar ilk in the disinformation business. I'm talking about Americans for Prosperity and the businesses and billionaires who back its obfuscatory propaganda. I'm talking about public persons and organizations and corporations for whom denying a fundamental scientific fact is profitable, who encourage the acceleration of an anti-environment course of unregulated consumption and production that, frankly, will screw my son and your children and whatever progeny they manage to have.
Those malcontents must be punished and stopped.
Deniers will, of course, fuss and stomp and beat their breasts and claim this is persecution, this is a violation of free speech. Of course, they already say that now, when judges force them into doing penance for comparing climate scientists to child-rapist and denial poster-boy Jerry Sandusky.
But First Amendment rights have never been absolute. You still can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. You shouldn't be able to yell "balderdash" at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year, all saying the same thing: This is a problem, and we should take some preparations for when it becomes a bigger problem.
Incredibly, he makes this plea while arguing that it is wrong "to deny people the tools they need to inform themselves" -- which we will accomplish by throwing one side of the debate in jail? Really?
I am so sick of this "First Amendment is not absolute" bullshit. It is absolute when it comes to issues like debating the merit of a scientific conclusion or debating the political implications of scientific research. It is absolutely absolute. In sports terms, this is a pop fly hit to second base. It is no where near the foul lines. It is so far from the foul lines that people would look askance at an umpire who screamed "fair ball" when the fact was already so patently obvious.
And no: motives, funding sources, and even being demonstrably right or wrong does not affect this absolute First Amendment protection.
Which all leaves an interesting question for Gawker: Under what First Amendment theory is outing salacious sexual details of private citizens who happen to work for Gawker's competition in order to gain advertising revenue somehow protected but discussing the shortcomings and political consequences of climate forecasts is not? I think they are both protected, but the former sure looks closer to the foul line than the latter.
A judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has ruled that in light of the USA Freedom Act's passage, the National Security Agency (NSA) may resume bulk collection of American's telephone records. In May, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had halted the process after finding that the Patriot Act never authorized such activity.
So "in light of" a law that basically ended authorization for the practice, and despite a court ruling that the original law never authorized the practice, the NSA is going to continue the practice.
Apparently John Roberts does all the FISA court judge appointments. It may be that we can never prevent this court from being captured by the NSA, but it is at least time to try a different approach to choosing these up-to-now rubber stamp judges. My memory may be off, but I don't think the FISA court has ever turned down a data hoovering request.
Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated. The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent. It adopts the "yes means yes," or "affirmative consent" model that was passed in California last year.
The California law applies only to college campuses, however. Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent — which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given — to the state or federal level. No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.
But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists. This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states' legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom.
I often argue that our political parties are not just internally inconsistent (ie they simultaneously hold positions whose logic essentially contradict themselves) but they are inconsistent across time. This is a great example of the latter.
The Left seems to be wasting its legitimate outrage about surveillance on the wrong targets.
“At a base minimum, people should be able to walk down a public street without fear that companies they’ve never heard of are tracking their every movement — and identifying them by name — using facial recognition technology,” the privacy advocates wrote in a joint statement....
“People simply do not expect companies they’ve never heard of to secretly track them using this powerful technology. Despite all of this, industry associations have pushed for a world where companies can use facial recognition on you whenever they want — no matter what you say. This position is well outside the mainstream.”
Look, I am all for these folks campaigning for better privacy protections on businesses, but really, isn't this the wrong target. Seriously, Target is tracking me in order to ... what? Make me a targeted discount offers and rearrange their stores to better match my shopping habits?
Look, the government has guns and prisons. They can take my money and my assets. What the government can do to me makes the fear of being in Pepsi's marketing data base seem like a pure joke.
Every day I leave my house I have to pass this damn government surveillance cactus not a hundred yards from my home, tracking my face and license plate.
There are at least two more of these in walking distance of my house.
I have news for you folks on the Left -- the government doesn't give a crap about your privacy, but is willing to beat on private corporations for a while (which really pose you zero harm) to divert you from the real threat, which is them. And in the end, despite all their rhetoric, they will likely let private corporations do whatever they want as long as the government gets a backdoor into the data.
It is the latter that worries me the most. I couldn't care less what Wal-Mart knows about my shopping habits. But I do care that data they gather could be funneled into Uncle Sam's greedy hands.
Things I Would Never Have Believed When I Was Young -- College Students Taking Offense Like Southern Baptists
I grew up in the Deep South (in Houston -- for outsiders, Texas acts like the South when one is east of I-35 and then is more like the West). Though my immediate family was fairly open-minded, I was surround by a scolding Southern Baptist culture that seemed deeply offended by everything -- dancing, drugs, drinking, youth behavior, movies, TV, games -- you name it. I remember visiting aunts and uncles and cousins who were in a perpetual state of being offended. And it carried over into the whole political culture of the place -- it seemed there was always some debate about book or textbook passage that needed to be banned to save the delicate eyes and impressionable brains of the children.
Going to college in the Ivy League was a breath of fresh air. I never cottoned much to the authoritarian command and control favored by many at college, but I loved the liberal atmosphere of tolerance for most any speech or behavior.
Little would I have believed it, but college students today now sound exactly like my Southern Baptist aunt. They are humorless and scolding and offended by virtually everything. Many of the same pieces of literature those good Texas Baptists were trying to censor from school curricula in my day because they conflicted with religious doctrine are now being censored by good campus Progressives because they might be triggering. What a bizarre turn of events.
Ian McEwan had a nice line in his graduation speech at Dickinson: "“being offended is not to be confused with a state of grace — it’s the occasional price we all pay for living in an open society.”
Deborah Vollmer appears to be a nightmare neighbor in this story from the Washington Post (via Maggie's Farm). She is absolutely hell-bent on preventing her neighbor from doing anything to their house that she would not do to it. If her neighbor's aesthetics don't match hers, she takes them to court.
“Some people may question my motives,” Vollmer said. “But what’s happening in this town, these developers, tearing down old homes. I’m standing up for my rights. . . . And then this whole thing just kind of evolved” from that...
What could possibly be driving this woman? Friend and Chevy Chase resident John Fitzgerald said that her stubborn streak has roots deep in her past. Vollmer forged her career defending the rights of those without means. And that, he said, inculcated in her a desire to protect principles until the bitter end.
What right or principle is she fighting for? The right to micro-manage her neighbor's property. Read the article, this woman seems to be a total nightmare, all because she wants everyone else's house to look exactly like hers.
She should move to California. She would fit right in. She would be a perfect candidate to sit on the California Coastal Commission, for example.
We have a sort-of similar fight brewing here in Phoenix where a few local residents were trying to prevent another resident from tearing down and rebuilding his tired old house, which happened to have been designed by Frank Lloyd Wright's studios. I appreciate Mr. Wright's work, but also know he designed some unlivable crap. He was an artist, experimenting, and sometimes the experiments were not great. He was also a businessman, always short of money, and sometimes his projects did not get his full artistic attention. In my view, this was such a house.
I have the same answer for Ms. Vollmer that I do for those Wright house enthusiasts -- if you want to control a piece of property, buy it. If you don't have the money, encourage other people to chip in. But if you can't get enough people who similarly value your vision for the property to fund its acquisition, don't take the shortcut of using your influence with the government to impose the cost on taxpayers, or worse, on the individual property holder.
Just when we thought the absurdity that marks every single day of Obama's reign could not possibly be surpassed, we learned that 4 hours (3 hours and 47 minutes to be precise) after the US president vowed to sign a new law banning bulk data collection by the NSA (named, for purely grotesque reasons, the "USA Freedom Act"), the Obama administration asked the secret Fisa surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months.
Or, as the Guardian's Spencer Ackerman, who spotted this glaring page out of Josef Stalin's playbook, summarized it:
June 2, 6:03pm: Obama says he'll sign law banning bulk collection. June 2 9:50pm: DOJ asks secret court for 180 more days of bulk collection
— Spencer Ackerman (@attackerman) June 8, 2015
According to Ackerman, this latest travesty by the administration "suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop."
For Those on the Left Who Want to Remove First Amendment Protections for Hate Speech, Consider President Lindsey Graham
So you think that "hate speech" or speech that makes someone uncomfortable or mocks someone or criticizes some particular group should not be protected under the First Amendment. For those on the Left (who seem to disproportionately hold this opinion), I ask you to define anti-hate-speech laws in a way that you will be entirely comfortable if, say, President Lindsey Graham (God forbid) were to inherit the power to enforce them.
A President Graham might consider speech mocking Christianity or Jesus to be hate speech. And if mocking Christianity is hate speech, wouldn't support for gay marriage or abortion be as well? What about mocking the military, or police -- isn't that hate speech?
If you ban some speech but not other speech, someone has to be in charge of what is in the "ban" category. When most people advocate for such a ban, they presume that "their guys" are going to be in charge of enforcing it, but outside of places like Detroit and Baltimore, sustained one-party rule in this country just does not happen. That is why most calls for speech restriction are so short-sited -- they assume that people of a like mind will always be in charge of wielding these restrictions, and that is a terribly historical assumption.
I think any opposition to free speech, particularly as exercised in an election, is unseemly, but Hillary Clinton's attacks on the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision are particularly so.
Why? Well to understand, we have to remember what the Citizens United case actually was. Over time, the decision has been shorthanded as the one that allows free corporate spending in elections, but this was not actually the situation at hand in the case. I could probably find a better source, but I am lazy and the Wikipedia summary is fine for my purposes:
In the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA"). Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions.
Yes, the Supreme Court generalized the decision to all corporations and unions (good for them) but the narrow issue in the case was whether an independent non-profit group could air a negative film about Hillary Clinton in the run-up to an election in which she was a candidate.
So when Hillary Clinton derides the Citizens United decision, she is arguing that the government should have used its powers to suppress a film critical of her personally. She is trying to protect herself from criticism.
Until now, Nevada has had one of the strongest anti-SLAPP protection laws in the US. As a reminder, SLAPP suits are ones aimed at silencing speech by intimidating it with legal threats and overwhelming it with legal defense costs. Anti-SLAPP laws provide legal protection to speech through a variety of means, including the ability to get quick dismissals of suits whose sole intention is to quash legal speech and in the best cases reimbursement of attorneys fees.
As you can imagine, politicials, the wealthy, and the powerful don't like these suits. Nevada is in the process of gutting these protections. Ken White has the story.
I have a new-found interest in such matters, as I was threatened by a major corporation this week with a libel suit if I did not remove my negative reviews of them on Yelp and on this blog. More on that in the next post.
I generally have refused to even participate in the debate over Indiana's RFRA because most of the discourse is so incredibly ill-informed that it is impossible to have a serious discussion. But I would like to make one observation:
Here is Ruth Marcus with as good a proxy for the anti-RFRA position as I can find:
Hold whatever religious views you want: about whether women should drive, or the morality of having children out of wedlock, or whatever. Your church gets to choose (and enforce its rules). You can practice whatever your church may preach. But if you operate a business, you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people based on who they are, or whom they love.
OK, that is clear enough -- if you have a business that serves the public, you must accommodate all the public equally. You can't decide not to do business with some group of people. But this leaves me with a question -- many of the opponents of Indiana's RFRA, from Apple Computer to the NY Times editorial page to the governor of Connecticut (which has its own RFRA, lol) called for businesses to boycott the citizens of Indiana. Why isn't such a boycott, essentially a refusal to do business with anyone from the state of Indiana irrespective of his or her position on the RFRA, illegal/immoral under exactly Marcus's logic? Most folks see boycotts as an important first amendment right, a way to express displeasure with a group using the power of markets, without government coersion. But it seems to be proscribed by Marcus's definition. Am I missing something here?
I suppose supporters of the boycott would argue that it is OK to refuse business based on political opinions but not on race or gender or sexual orientation. But supporting the legality of gay marriage is a political opinion. Now what?
Try as I might, I can only think of two internally consistent positions on this issue: 1. Businesses have the freedom to accommodate whomever they want; or 2. All businesses, perhaps as a part of the state business license requirements, must accommodate all comers no matter what. Number one leads to some ugly, but probably rare, incidents. Number two causes a lot of friction with other first amendment rights such as speech and religion.
Any other position must take the form of "it is legal to refuse accommodation based on some things but illegal to refuse accommodation based on other things." There is no way to derive a dividing line between the two based on first principles, so the line becomes a political football, with no viewpoint neutrality. Basically, accommodation law is whatever the politician of the moment says it is. Unfortunately, this seems to be what most folks are advocating.
The Supremes are going to discuss whether displaying a confederate battle flag on your custom license plate is protected by free speech.
In 1980 when I went up north to school I had a Confederate battle flag on my wall. I keep calling it the battle flag because in fact the flag you are thinking about (the one on the Dukes of Hazard's car) is not actually the flag of the Confederate nation. Most folks could not describe the original Confederate flag under torture (here it is).
So the flag you are thinking about, and the Supremes are considering, was actually based on the battle flags of certain state militias, like that of Virginia and Tennessee. It was also used by the Confederate Navy, and was incorporated into a redesign of the official Confederate flag late in the war.
Anyway, there were a couple of reasons a young Texan might put up this flag in his northern dorm room. First, it is awesome looking. There are a lot of bad flags in the world, but this is a great-looking flag. Second, at the time it represented the southern pride of a lot of us who found ourselves displaced and living in that odd northeastern college culture. It never represented (at least at the time) anything racist for me. For southerners (many of us raised, without knowing it, on the Lost Cause school of Civil War historiography) it represented pride and pluck and scrappy determination.
Anyway, I don't remember getting any pushback on the flag at the time. Over the years, though, I came to recognize that the flag was seen by many as a symbol of racism. Part of that was my increasing awareness but a large part was shifts in society and its perceptions -- remember the Dukes of Hazard was a real, popular network show that could likely never get made today. I suppose I could have retained the flag as a symbol of what I thought it was a symbol for, and just ignored other peoples' opinion. But at some point, I realized that other peoples' good opinion of me had value and that I needed to acknowledge how they saw the flag and put it away in a box.
Which brings me back to license plates. If a state is going to create a license plate program where people can make statements with their license plates, then people should be able to make the statement they want to make. I know there are folks in the south who honestly still cling to the symbolism I used to attach to the Confederate battle flag. But let's leave those folks aside. Let's assume for a moment that everyone who wants to display this symbol on their car is a racist. Shouldn't we be thrilled if they want to do so? Here would be a program where racists would voluntarily self-identify to all as a racist (they would even pay extra to do so!) What would be a greater public service?
I make this same argument when people want to ban speakers from campus. If people are willing to come forward with evil thoughts and intentions and announce them publicly, why wouldn't we let them? It's is fine to want to eliminate evil from the Earth, but
shilling banning hateful speech doesn't do this -- it only drives evil underground.
Postscript: I actually started thinking about this driving down I-40 from Knoxville to Nashville yesterday. In a bend in the road, on a hill, there is a large home. Their land goes right out to the bend in the highway, and on that bend they have put up a huge flag pole with a big Confederate battle flag. You can see it from miles in each direction. I didn't get a picture but there are plenty on the web. From searching for it, there are apparently similar installations on private land in other states. As I drove, having nothing else to do, I thought a lot about what message they were trying to send. Was it just southern pride? Were they really racists? If they weren't racists, did they know that many would think them as such? And if so, did they even care -- was this in fact just a giant FU?
Update: Fixed the typo in the last line. Did I mean chilling? Not even sure. Banning is what I meant.
I strive to treat people I disagree with as intelligent persons of goodwill. I don't always succeed. It helps that many, even the majority, of my friends and family disagree with me politically.
A reader sent me Evil Greedy Stupid Sheep: 4 Modern Ways to Win An Argument. The only quibble I have is the word "modern". I am pretty sure that if we had better historical sources we would find people accusing Ramses or Sargon of being evil and in the pay of grain merchants.
I would add a fifth category to this I would call "out-group". I don't have to listen to you because you are from group X. There is a famous quote from WWII from a man I believe was in the British Foreign Office, who, when asked about stories of Nazi atrocities, said that they needn't take seriously a bunch of "wailing Jews."
As I grew up, I thought we might actually be getting beyond this. You know - the sixties and tolerance and racial understanding and all that. But it turns out that tolerance does not mean the end of out-groups, it simply means that the out groups are changing. "Check you privilege" is the common campus shorthand nowadays for "shut up white male." Males, whites, the religious, the well off -- these are the new out-groups whose origins are used to automatically invalidate anything they say.
The Left has absolutely bent over backwards to make sure we understand that Islamic terrorists are not representative of the Muslim religion or Islam in general. Further, they seem really quick to excuse or at least ignore a lot of really awful illiberal behavior by Islamic nations, including systematic abuse and near-enslavement of women, execution of gays, harassment of any non-Muslims, or even of Muslims from competing sects, etc. We need to be tolerant, dontcha know.
So why is it that all this absolute cascade of bad behavior by various Muslims is not representative of true Islam but a tiny tiny few American males who are violent sex offenders are somehow totally representative of the entire gender, such that all men have to constantly humble ourselves, avoid speaking certain facts, apologize and bear guilt, go to college re-education programs, etc?