Im-Politic: A Solution to the Big Tech Misinformation/Censorship Quandary

Tags

algorithmic amplification, antitrust, Big Tech, censorship, competition, Constitution, Facebook, free expression, free speech, Im-Politic, internet, journalism, Mainstream Media, misinformation, monopoly, news media, Section 230, social media, tech, Twitter

Don’t look now (a heckuva way to begin a piece of writing!), but I may have come up with one solution to the incredibly complex and just as important national dilemma over regulating how gargantuan social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter handle Americans’ speech rights.

First, let me stipulate that I’m anything but an expert on the Constitution, law and regulation of any kind (except maybe in the international trade field), or technology of any kind. But maybe I know enough to have produced a plan that’s outside-the-box enough to break the various legal and political and philosophical logjams that have left the nation with a status quo that seems to satsify no one, but that’s anchored in reality.

In addition, the thoughts below were prompted by a very stimulating panel discussion involving genuine experts in all these fields that took place this past weekend at a wide-ranging policy conference held by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. (I spoke on a separate panel on China.) So my ideas aren’t coming from completely out of the blue.

The nub of the problem is that Americans across the political spectrum are furious with the platforms’ speech policies, but for radically different reasons. Those to the left of center blast them for posting what they view as misinformation. Their conservative counterparts claim that right-of-center views are too often censored – typically because they’re bogusly accused of spreading misinformation.

All sides seem to agree that the platforms’ practices matter greatly because, due largely to their algorithmic amplification powers, they have such power to turn material viral that they’ve achieved the massive scale needed to become a leading  – and often the leading – way in which Americans receive news, opinion, and other forms of information that affect politics and public policy. But towering obstacles stand in the way of pretty much every proposal for reform advanced so far.

For example, their status as private companies would appear to block any move to empower government to influence their speech practices. Antitrust specialists disagree strongly as to whether they’re now monopolistic or oligopolistic enough under current or even proposed legal standards to warrant breaking up. The companies themselves of course deny any such allegations, and contend that if they needed to downsize, they wouldn’t be able to compete effectively around the world with foreign counterparts – especially those from China. Some have proposed turning them into public utilities, but opponents call that a great way to stifle any further innovation.

So here’s my idea: Turn the platforms into a new type of entity that would be subject to a new body of regulation reflecting both the distinctive importance of free expression in American life and the distinctive (and indeed predominant) role that the platforms now play in enabling individuals and organizations both to disseminate material, and (stemming from an aspect of free expression rights that’s often overlooked, but that’s now unquestionably vulnerable due to the main platforms’ sheer scale and reach) to reach their potential audiences. One possible name: Electronic Speech Companies (ESCs).

As history demonstrates, there’s nothing unusual about the federal government organizing private business into different categories for tax purposes, and there’s nothing unusual about government at any level regulating such businesses with an unusually heavy hand because of their outsized role in providing vital goods and services. That should be clear from the long-established policy of creating utilities. So I don’t see any Constitutional problems with my idea.

I agree that government’s price-setting authority over utilities can stymie innovation. But ensuring that these entities don’t curb free expression any more than (legally) necessary (see below) wouldn’t require creating such authority. I’d permit these ESCs to charge whatever they want for their services and to make money however they like (including selling users’ personal information – which does raise problems of its own, but which are unrelated to the speech issue). As currently required by the controversial Section 230 provision of the Communication Decency Act of 1996, they wouldn’t be able to disseminate any content that’s already illegal under federal criminal law, intellectual property law, electronic communications privacy law, or (most recently) criminal and civil sex trafficking law.

I’d also make them subject to current libel law – which means that plaintiffs would need to prove that false and defamatory information had been spread maliciously and knowingly. Could this rule mean that now-incredibly clogged U.S. courts would become more incredibly clogged? Sure. So let’s also set up a separate court system to handle such cases. Since a dedicated tax court system already exists, why not?

Frivolous suits could be reduced with “loser pays” requirements for court costs. The Big Tech defendants would doubtless still hold a huge advantage by being able to hire the very best legal minds and driving those costs up by dragging out proceedings. But a number of legal non-profits have emerged over the years to help the little guys and gals in these situations, so maybe at least the potentially most important and promising suits wouldn’t be deterred by financial considerations.

What the ESCs wouldn’t be permitted to do is bar or delete or modify any content, or any users, on misinformation grounds. Advocates of continuing to permit and even further encourage or require such practices argue that the platforms’ vast scale requires greater discretionary and often required authority along these lines in the name of any number of good causes – election integrity, public safety, national security, etc. (See, e.g., here.)

But three counter-arguments are more persuasive to me. First, I can’t imagine developing any legal definition of misinformation (as opposed to libel or other well-established Constitutional speech curbs) that would be genuinely neutral substantively and that therefore wouldn’t be easy to abuse massively – and to the great detriment of our democracy’s health, due to the platforms’ scale.

Second, that’s no doubt why such regulations have absolutely no precedent in U.S. history, despite past periods and instances of intolerance dating from the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

Third, if the ESCs are going to be held liable for disseminating etc misinformation, what excuse will there be to maintain protection for the rest of the news media? I’ve spent much of my multi-decade career in policy analysis finding instances that would unmistakably qualify. Not that ongoing and arguably worsening conventional media irresponsibility is any cause for complacency. But would a government remedy for such an intrinsically nebulous offense really result in a net improvement?

Individual victims of ESC censorship would, however, need remedies for these forms of cancellation, and as with libel and slander, a special court system could handle accusations, using the aforementioned provisions aimed at leveling the legal costs playing field. The Justice Department could file its own suits, too, and some seem likely if only because its own inevitable political sympathies are bound to shift as power in Washington changes hands over time. This prospect, moreover, should help keep the ESCs on their best behavior.

The big danger of my proposal, of course, is that misinformation would keep appearing and metastasizing online, and spreading like wildfire offline due to the ESCs’ extraordinary reach. That can’t be a healthy development. But it’s surely an unavoidable development for anyone valuing any meaningful version of free expression and its crucial corollary – the marketplace of ideas. For empowering a handful of immense ESCs to restrict misinformation threatens to narrow greatly and even fatally the competitive essence of this marketplace.

Throughout U.S. history, Americans have relied on these dynamics, and the common sense of the public, to crown as winners the best ideas and the benefits they bring, and declare as losers those that have either caused or threatened serious dangers. Is anyone out there prepared to deny seriously that the results, though imperfect, have been historically excellent, that the potential for improvement remains just as impressive, or that any alternative yet proposed looks superior? If not, then I hope you’ll consider this ESC plan at least a promising framework for ensuring that these digital giants don’t become the ultimate arbiters.

Im-Politic: Why I Voted for Trump

Tags

Big Tech, Black Lives Matter, censorship, China, Conservative Populism, conservatives, Democrats, economic nationalism, election 2020, entertainment, environment, free expression, freedom of speech, George Floyd, Hollywood, Hunter Biden, Immigration, impeachment, industrial policy, Joe Biden, Josh Hawley, journalism, Mainstream Media, Marco Rubio, police killings, Populism, progressives, regulations, Republicans, Robert Reich, Russia-Gate, sanctions, Silicon Valley, social media, supply chains, tariffs, taxes, technology, Trade, trade war, Trump, Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Ukraine Scandal, Wall Street, wokeness

Given what 2020 has been like for most of the world (although I personally have little cause for complaint), and especially Washington Post coverage of endless early voting lines throughout the Maryland surburbs of the District of Columbia, I was expecting to wait for hours in bad weather to cast my ballot for President Trump. Still, I was certain that Election Day circumstances would be a complete mess, so hitting the polling place this week seemed the least bad option.

Hence my amazement that the worst case didn’t pan out – and that in fact, I was able to kill two birds with one stone. My plan was to check out the situation, including parking, at the University of Maryland site closest to my home on my way to the supermarket. But the scene was so quiet that I seized the day, masked up, and was able to feed my paper ballot into the recording machine within about ten minutes.

My Trump vote won’t be surprising to any RealityChek regulars or others who have been in touch with on or off social media in recent years. Still, it seems appropriate to explain why, especially since I haven’t yet spelled out some of the most important reasons.

Of course, the President’s positions on trade (including a China challenge that extends to technology and national security) and immigration have loomed large in my thinking, as has Mr. Trump’s America First-oriented (however unevenly) approach to foreign policy. (For newbies, see all the posts here under “[What’s Left of] Our Economy,” and “Our So-Called Foreign Policy,” and various freelance articles that are easily found on-line.). The Biden nomination has only strengthened my convictions on all these fronts, and not solely or mainly because of charges that the former Vice President has been on Beijing’s payroll, via his family, for years.

As I’ve reported, for decades he’s been a strong supporter of bipartisan policies that have greatly enriched and therefore strengthened this increasingly aggressive thug-ocracy. It’s true that he’s proposed to bring back stateside supply chains for critical products, like healthcare and defense-related goods, and has danced around the issue of lifting the Trump tariffs. But the Silicon Valley and Wall Street tycoons who have opened their wallets so wide for him are staunchly opposed to anything remotely resembling a decoupling of the U.S. and Chinese economies and especially technology bases

Therefore, I can easily imagine Biden soon starting to ease up on sanctions against Chinese tech companies – largely in response to tech industry executives who are happy to clamor for subsidies to bolster national competitiveness, but who fear losing markets and the huge sunk costs of their investments in China. I can just as easily imagine a Biden administration freeing up bilateral trade again for numerous reasons: in exchange for an empty promise by Beijing to get serious about fighting climate change; for a deal that would help keep progressive Democrats in line; or for an equally empty pledge to dial back its aggression in East Asia; or as an incentive to China to launch a new round of comprehensive negotiations aimed at reductions or elimination of Chinese trade barriers that can’t possibly be adequately verified. And a major reversion to dangerous pre-Trump China-coddling can by no means be ruled out.

Today, however, I’d like to focus on three subjects I haven’t dealt with as much that have reinforced my political choice.

First, and related to my views on trade and immigration, it’s occurred to me for several years now that between the Trump measures in these fields, and his tax and regulatory cuts, that the President has hit upon a combination of policies that could both ensure improved national economic and technological competitiveness, and build the bipartisan political support needed to achieve these goals.

No one has been more surprised than me about this possibility – which may be why I’ve-hesitated to write about it. For years before the Trump Era, I viewed more realistic trade policies in particular as the key to ensuring that U.S.-based businesses – and manufacturers in particular – could contribute the needed growth and jobs to the economy overall even under stringent (but necessary) regulatory regimes for the environment, workplace safety, and the like by removing the need for these companies to compete with imports from countries that ignored all these concerns (including imports coming from U.S.-owned factories in cheap labor pollution havens like China and Mexico).

I still think that this approach would work. Moreover, it contains lots for folks on the Left to like. But the Trump administration has chosen a different economic policy mix – high tariffs, tax and regulatory relief for business, and immigration restrictions that have tightened the labor market. And the strength of the pre-CCP Virus economy – including low unemployment and wage growth for lower-income workers and minorities – attests to its success.

A Trump victory, as I see it, would result in a continuation of this approach. Even better, the President’s renewed political strength, buoyed by support from more economically forward-looking Republicans and conservatives like Senators Marco Rubio of Florida and Josh Hawley of Missouri, could bring needed additions to this approach – notably, more family-friendly tax and regulatory policies (including childcare expense breaks and more generous mandatory family leave), and more ambitious industrial policies that would work in tandem with tariffs and sanctions to beat back the China technology and national security threat.

Moreover, a big obstacle to this type of right-of-center (or centrist) conservative populism and economic nationalism would be removed – the President’s need throughout the last four years to support the stances of the conventional conservatives that are still numerous in Congress in order to ensure their support against impeachment efforts.

My second generally undisclosed (here) reason for voting Trump has to do with Democrats and other Trump opponents (although I’ve made this point repeatedly on Facebook to Never Trumper friends and others). Since Mr. Trump first announced his candidacy for the White House back in 2015, I’ve argued that Americans seeking to defeat him for whatever reason needed to come up with viable responses to the economic and social grievances that gave him a platform and a huge political base. Once he won the presidency, it became even more important for his adversaries to learn the right lessons.

Nothing could be clearer, however, than their refusal to get with a fundamentally new substantive program with nationally unifying appeal. As just indicated, conventional Republicans and conservatives capitalized on their role in impeachment politics to push their longstanding but ever more obsolete (given the President’s overwhelming popularity among Republican voters) quasi-libertarian agenda, at least on domestic policy.

As for Democrats and liberals, in conjunction with the outgoing Obama administration, the countless haters in the intelligence community and elsewhere in the permanent bureaucracy, and the establishment conservatives Mr. Trump needed to staff much of his administration, they concentrated on ousting an elected President they considered illegitimate, and wasted more than three precious years of the nation’s time. And when they weren’t pushing a series of charges that deserve the titles “Russia Hoax” and “Ukraine Hoax,” the Democrats and liberals were embracing ever more extreme Left stances as scornful of working class priorities as their defeated 2016 candidate’s description of many Trump voters as “deplorables.”

I see no reason to expect any of these factions to change if they defeat the President this time around. And this forecast leads me to my third and perhaps most important reason for voting Trump. As has been painfully obvious especially since George Floyd’s unacceptable death at the hands of Minneapolis police officers, the type of arrogance, sanctimony and – more crucially – intolerance that has come to permeate Democratic, liberal, and progressive ranks has now spread widely into Wall Street and the Big Business Sector.

To all Americans genuinely devoted to representative and accountable government, and to the individual liberties and vigorous competition of ideas and that’s their fundamental foundation, the results have been (or should be) nothing less than terrifying. Along with higher education, the Mainstream Media, Big Tech, and the entertainment and sports industries, the nation’s corporate establishment now lines up squarely behind the idea that pushing particular political, economic, social, and cultural ideas and suppressing others has become so paramount that schooling should turn into propaganda, that news reporting should abandon even the goal of objectivity, that companies should enforce party lines in the workplace and agitate for them in advertising and sponsorship practices, and that free expression itself needed a major rethink.

And oh yes: Bring on a government-run “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to investigate – and maybe prosecute – crimes and other instances of “wrongdoing” by the President, by (any?) officials in his administration. For good measure, add every “politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled” the Trump “catastrophe,” as former Clinton administration Labor Secretary Robert Reich has demanded. Along with a Scarlet Letter, or worse, for everyone who’s expressed any contrary opinion in the conventional or new media? Or in conversation with vigilant friends or family?

That Truth Commission idea is still pretty fringe-y. So far. But not too long ago, many of the developments described above were, too. And my chief worry is that if Mr. Trump loses, there will be no major national institution with any inclination or power to resist this authoritarian tide.

It’s reasonable to suppose that more traditional beliefs about free expression are so deeply ingrained in the national character that eventually they’ll reassert themselves. Pure self-interest will probably help, too. In this vein, it was interesting to note that Walmart, which has not only proclaimed its belief that “Black Lives Matter,” but promised to spend $100 million on a “center for racial equality” just saw one of its Philadelphia stores ransacked by looters during the unrest that has followed a controversial police shooting.

But at best, tremendous damage can be done between now and “eventually.” At worst, the active backing of or acquiescence in this Woke agenda by America’s wealthiest, most influential forces for any significant timespan could produce lasting harm to the nation’s life.

As I’ve often said, if you asked me in 2015, “Of all the 300-plus million Americans, who would you like to become President?” my first answer wouldn’t have been “Donald J. Trump.” But no other national politician at that point displayed the gut-level awareness that nothing less than policy disruption was needed on many fronts, combined with the willingness to enter the arena and the ability to inspire mass support.

Nowadays, and possibly more important, he’s the only national leader willing and able to generate the kind of countervailing force needed not only to push back against Woke-ism, but to provide some semblance of the political pluralism – indeed, diversity – required by representative, accountable government. And so although much about the President’s personality led me to mentally held my nose at the polling place, I darkened the little circle next to his name on the ballot with no hesitation. And the case for Mr. Trump I just made of course means that I hope many of you either have done or will do the same.

Making News: Breitbart Radio Interview on Twitter Suspension Now On-Line!

Tags

Breitbart News Tonight, censorship, free expression, free speech, freedom of speech, Making News, social media, Twitter

I’m pleased to announce that a podcast is now on-line of a short-notice interview last night with me on “Breitbart News Tonight.”  The subjects:  my brief but strange and kind of fishy recent suspension by Twitter, along with the issue of the free speech and censorship policies of such influential social media platforms.

To access this lively conversation with co-hosts Rebecca Mansour and Lee Smith, click on this link, and scroll down till you see my name on a November 21 entry.  (For some reason, the podcasts aren’t listed chronologically.)

And keep checking in with RealityChek for news of new media appearances and other events.

House-Keeping: I Just Got Suspended by Twitter??!?!!?

Tags

censorship, free expression, free speech, Im-Politic, social media, Twitter

Many of you who know me either in person or through my writings know that I adore Twitter.  I’ve repeatedly stated that by light years it’s the most effective medium I’ve ever used from the standpoint of reaching individuals and organizations I very much want to reach.  It’s also great for challenging users to express themselves pithily.

So imagine my surprise early this afternoon to have found out that my Twitter account has been “suspended”!

This action could be a simple mistake.  (After all, like all the major social media platforms, Twitter deals with huge numbers of users.)  But the timing (the day of some major Trump impeachment hearings) does look a little fishy.

Of course, one of the more frustrating aspects of this incident is that there’s no way for me to find out Twitter’s reasoning yet – assuming I was suspended “for cause.”  Nor is it possible for me to identify any accusers, either who work for Twitter or not.  And I may never find out.  It’s also noteworthy that the suspension wasn’t preceded by a warning of any kind.  One minute, I was a tweeter in good standing, and the next, sentenced as a bad actor and silenced.

The platform does permit users to appeal suspensions, and the process includes an opportunity for me to plead my case.  (I’ve done both.)  But apparently it’s up to me to prove my innocence – not the other way around, as is the case with virtually the entire American legal system (the IRS appeals process being a notable exception).

Thanks to the telephone and email, I’ve been able to spread the word to some friends, colleagues, and other contacts, who have begun to question the decision on Twitter and via other media.  If anyone reading this would like to do the same, I’d be very grateful.

Nothing I’ve ever tweeted has been any more profane, ad hominem, knowingly false, or otherwise offensive than anything I’ve written here – or anywhere else.  And like I said, maybe the software just messed up.  But if not, my suspension (however brief or long) would raise some serious questions about how much longer Twitter and other platforms should be permitted, without any regulation or even simple accountability,  to play such an increasingly dominant role in the national and global public squares.  And yes, I’ll pass on word of any new developments as soon as I get them.  (Unless I’m subjected to a gag order???)

 

 

 

Im-Politic: Unpacking the Ilhan Omar Mess

Tags

free expression, identity, Ilhan Omar, John McCain, race-mongering, racism, terrorism, The Squad, Trump

It’s so utterly typical of how fevered Americans of all political stripes have become in the last decade or so (and especially in the Age of Trump, which began as soon as he declared his candidacy for presidency): The more verbiage that’s spilled over the clash that’s developed over controversial recent remarks by the four Democratic Congresswomen comprising the so-called Squad, and President Trump’s reactions, the more confused and dangerously simplistic this rhetorical gang war becomes.

So for the record, here’s my effort to spell out the only reasonable conclusions to draw about the main participants – and especially Mr. Trump and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who have generated the most intense reactions pro and con. Also utterly typical of the times: I have no doubt that few of you readers on any side are going to be entirely pleased.

My bottom line: There can be no reasonable doubt that the President was deeply and offensively wrong when he tweeted that Omar and the other Squad-ers should “go back” to their troubled countries or origin and help fix their problems instead of “loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run.” But there can also be no reasonable doubt that there are entirely reasonable grounds for finding many of Omar’s own statements repugnant and insulting enough prompt speculation about her allegiance to the nation – in an emotional, if not a legal, sense.

Of course, the Trump tweets were completely and inexcusably inaccurate in the case of Squad members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts – who are all American born. And since all four of the Squad-ers are women of color, he once more opened himself up to reasonable charges of racism, or at least expressing racist views – since his phrasing unmistakably equated being non-white with being foreign-born.

In my view, Mr. Trump was simply once again being stupid and sloppy. Still stupider on the President’s part: As a result, he’s legitimized at least some of the race-mongering of four politicians who have been among the most flagrant race-mongers seen in American politics since the heyday of segregationist resistance to the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s.

But what I want to focus on here is that he plainly stepped in it, and needlessly deepened national divisions. Presidents should try to do the opposite.

In this vein, also deeply and offensively wrong have been the President’s “love it or leave it”-type tweets and subsequent remarks, whether meant for the Squad or for anyone legally or even illegally living in America. Everyone resident here enjoys full Constitutional free expression protections. Period.

Worse still was the “Send her back” chant that broke out during his rally in Greenville, North Carolina last week. All those participating should have their proverbial mouths washed out. For unlike the “go back” Trump tweets and statements, this call amounted to a demand that Omar be forcibly removed from the country for her opinions. The President (who certainly knows how to egg on a crowd) never encouraged these cries, and in fact looked pretty unhappy while listening to it for its 13-second duration. But he didn’t move to quiet it. So even though he has never expressed this sentiment and disavowed it subsequently, it’s entirely fair to charge that he badly flunked the leadership test passed with flying colors by the late Arizona Republican Senator John McCain during his unsuccessful presidential campaign of 2008.

Still, none of the above can create any reasonable doubt that Omar is an anti-American ingrate – and that as such, Americans (including President Trump) have every right to be offended by many of her own remarks, and even to wonder why (but not to favor expelling her), if her affinity with her adopted country is so threadbare, she’s chosen to stay.

This question of identifying with America is crucial because no one can legitimately question the loyalty or identity of Omar (or the other Squad-ers, or other Americans) for denouncing specific current and past U.S. policies and circumstances in the most vehement possible terms. Moreover, as noted in this must-read (especially for Trump supporters) Washington Post piece on many of the President’s own statements, Mr. Trump’s record is full of such sentiments, too. (Portraying the country’s very founding – as has become all too common on the far Left – to be an act grounded in white supremacy is another matter, in my view. But I haven’t found any comments from any of the Squad-ers deserving of that description.)

These allegations are easily supported by Omar’s unquestioned belittling of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks by violent Muslim jihadists, by her giggling dismissal of Americans’ fear of Al Qaeda, the jihadist terrorist group that planned and carried out these attacks, and by her call for lenient treatment for young Somali-Americans convicted of planning to join another jihadist terror group, ISIS. Slighting the importance of an event that claimed thousands of American lives and generated thousands more casualties, ridiculing the idea that the perpetrators are a major threat, and sympathizing with those seeking to join an equally hostile organization – this record is so far out of the range of normal that it does indicate a fundamental alienation from her adopted country.

The question of Omar’s gratitude matters, too. Again, it’s by no means illegal. But as opposed to given its long and deep roots – this Washington Post profile shows that it began practically from her arrival and continues today – it also quite naturally raises the question of why, during all these years, she hasn’t concluded that she’d be better off somewhere else. After all, she’s still quite young, she has most of her life ahead of her, she’s a gifted orator and politician, she clearly has had the means to leave for some time. And surely there are countries beyond America’s borders that haven’t conducted foreign policies so brutal and otherwise disgraceful that they haven’t provoked (understandable, as she sees it) jihadist retaliation, and that have been more welcoming to Muslims.

In other words, Omar has a perfect right to stay and engage in any Constitutionally protected expression she wishes. But I and others have an equal right to express outrage and also to proceed to ask “What gives?” without being slimed for intolerance. And to attack President Trump for blurring these vital distinctions. Meanwhile, all of us should be discouraged that so many of us evidently can’t keep them straight, either.

Im-Politic: Biden’s Real Problem(s) with Women

Tags

feminism, First Amendment, free expression, gender, hate speech, Im-Politic, Joe Biden, Me Too, New Puritans, personal space, privacy, sexism, sexual assault

As long as Joe Biden remains in the potential or actual 2020 presidential election game, Americans will be debating the propriety of his longstanding touchy-feely style of dealing with women in particular, and how best to respond to these and similar situations and charges. As usual, opinion (at least as expressed in the often hysteria-prone national media) seems polarized between extremes, and as usual, genuine wisdom resides somewhere in the middle.

The best way to arrive at sensible conclusions – i.e., those that permit us to continue functioning as human beings with legitimately differing personalities while respecting the equally legitimate sensitivities and indeed fears of others – seems to be to unpack the several overlapping issues involved, at least in part (because there are good reasons for much of the overlap).

Even the women who have complained about Biden state that his behavior wasn’t sexually motivated, which is definitely a big point in the former Vice President’s favor. Even so, he deserves reprimands on many grounds. First, Biden’s claim, in his first extensive (video) response, that in the wake of the Me Too revelations and movement, the rules regarding personal space have changed, is simply too convenient. So are defenses of Biden claiming that his critics seek to criminalize even normal, often desirable displays of affection, or endorsing his insistence that he’s simply been slow to adjust to changing times.

The “Biden-ists” have a point when the individuals involved who are well acquainted, either as friends or as relatives. In such instances, spontaneous, light physical contact can be perfectly fine – and indeed a necessary form of human bonding. But in these Biden cases, these kinds of relationships didn’t exist. And when that’s the case, the default position should rule out touching unless it’s expressly welcomed.

Moreover, what’s the evidence that intense physical contact among strangers has been the norm in American history before the so-called New Puritans of the Left emerged? For what it’s worth, as long as I can remember, public schools have taught even their youngest students to refrain from touching their peers without some clear sign of permission or encouragement, or aside from contact sports and games. And I’ve never met a parent who has told his or her child that physical contact outside of boisterous play is just fine once the other child protests.

At the same time, the incidence of sexual abuse among relatives makes clear that the mere existence of a relationship can’t seen as license to caress away. Which brings up a second problem with Biden’s actions and his subsequent defenses – and a second reason for entering any social situation with a hands-off mindset. When it comes to physical contact, the object individual’s feelings must be paramount. And mature adults in particular should be actively trying to anticipate them before plunging in. That’s why the idea of personal spheres or zones of privacy have always been so valued, especially in cultures and societies that prioritize protecting individual rights. The very idea of privacy logically assumes that the “contact-ee” is entitled to absolute control over entry into that zone, and that the “contact-er” needs to recognize this form of sovereignty and avoid taking genuine initiative.

As a result, Biden’s suggestion that he should be absolved because his intentions were innocent (which, to be fair, was followed by an admission of the importance of getting up to date) is thoroughly inadequate. He should have been continually aware that, in cases of women he didn’t know, or didn’t know well, it never should have been “all about him.” The women’s potential feelings should have ranked much higher on his scale of concerns – and the more so since Biden’s strongly feminist policy record, including an active role in pushing zero-tolerance-type policies on college campuses, indicate that he’s thought a great deal about such matters.

Even weirder is Biden’s apparent cluelessness about the power issues raised by his actions. After all, the Me Too Era has rightly and finally shone a blazing light on how common it’s been for men to exploit their professional and other business positions for sexual ends. It should be equally clear, therefore that women have long lived with justifiable fears about such exploitation. So even if he was unaware of such context in the episode involving New Mexico politician Lucy Flores, it should be plain as day to him now how uncomfortable and even afraid his (unsolicited) kissing and nuzzling, however gentle and innocently aimed, would likely make her given his role near the top of a political party in which she obviously hoped to succeed. At the very least, in this context, his behavior can’t help but convey a sense of entitlement.   

Moreover, the long-time and often continuing subordination of women in America, and the fact that such invasions of privacy are so common and therefore until recently have attracted so little attention means that “Believe women” is a justifiable guideline. As I wrote in connection with the battle over confirming Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, that’s why the law recognizes that numerous similar considerations warrant exceptions to the presumption of innocence in criminal sexual abuse cases.

Finally, Biden deserves some shots on the Me Too et al score both for never having apologized for his behavior (as opposed to saying he “felt badly” for any discomfort he caused) and then for making light of his accusers and their allegations.

At the same time, let’s not suppose that the object’s feelings also necessarily override all else when the offenses are verbal. Constitutionally, of course, laws and even norms against abusive speech run into strong First Amendment protections. No unwanted physical contact of any kind enjoys such status. Moreover, it’s easy to identify unwanted contact. It either has or hasn’t taken place. (Yes, “in your face-type” approaches are less clearcut.) Bright lines separating acceptable from allegedly unacceptable speech are much harder to find (though not impossible, since free expression is not an absolute right under long prevailing interpretations of the Constitution). Consequently, it’s much easier to abuse even the best-intentioned efforts to curb or ban hurtful speech.

This latter complication, in turn, influences the so-called “snowflake” factor. Specifically, the centuries-long determination of American society to permit even the most hateful speech in most circumstances seems to reflect a belief that in a free society, a high degree of verbal rough-and-tumble is necessary and even often desirable. In addition, psychologically, it’s reasonable to assume that leading a healthy, well-adjusted life entails some ability to roll with most such verbal punches as well. I’m aware of no comparable conviction that a free society requires a high degree – or any degree – or unwanted physical rough-and-tumble, much less that such behavior produces any positive results. And show me the mental health professional who believes that emotional well-being and normality entail sloughing off lots of groping.

The bottom line? There’s no valid reason to stamp Biden as a sexual predator or even a sexist. There’s every reason to view him as an exemplar of terrible judgment and (stubbornly) gross insensitivity on this cluster of gender issues. As a result, Democrats and others who keep seeking better from him are anything but New Puritans. They’re folks who’d like to to see their political leaders display some genuine ability to learn.

Im-Politic: A Free Speech Expert Who’s Clueless About Free Speech’s History

Tags

chattering class, Columbia University, First Amendment, free expression, Im-Politic, Lee C. Bollinger, radical Islam, theocracies, tolerance, Washington Post

Americans should be grateful to Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger for once again reminding that even world-class scholars can be completely ignorant about what’s genuinely important in their fields and what’s not.

According to Bollinger, writing in The Washington Post, Americans shouldn’t get up on their high horses (though he didn’t use that recent phrasing by President Obama) about all the anti-free-speech government repression and extremist group violence that seems so distressingly common around the world today. His reasoning: “[T]the protections for uninhibited expression in this country are just a half-century old.” Even better, writes Bollinger, also a law professor at the university, ‘The way that Americans learned to adapt to changing times, and to tolerate discordant views, shows how others can, too.”

The reason? America’s own free speech protections “were not attained quickly or easily, nor were they simply a product of judicial edict. They took hold because they emerged from larger forces that are visible again today around the world: expanding economic markets, quantum leaps in communications technology and a set of urgent social problems solvable only through previously unavailable levels of concerted action.” 

No one can doubt that Americans today are freer to express themselves in a greater variety of ways in a broader range of circumstances than before the landmark cases of the first two-thirds of the twentieth century that Bollinger cites. But that’s not to say that the author is remotely correct to imply, per his unmistakable line of argument, that that earlier America was comparable to today’s repressive societies.

For despite Bollinger’s reputation as “one of the country’s foremost First Amendment scholars,” he seems not to know that the First Amendment established, and therefore began protecting, free expression rights, starting in 1791. Did barriers to unfettered speech continue afterwards? Of course – as Bollinger’s article usefully shows. But was the vast majority of Americans unable to voice a wide variety of opinions on a vast array of political, economic, and social issues? Were ordinary citizens and writers and cartoonists routinely prosecuted for portraying public figures in the most insulting possible ways? Were governments able to muzzle expression sufficiently to keep themselves in power illegally? To prevent the rise of political parties and movements with fundamentally different views? Of course not. Have protests been declared illegal from the get go? (Strikes were forbidden early in the republic – but recognized as a freedom in 1839.) Was even a significant share of the population ever barred from worshiping as it pleased? Of course not again.

Again, it’s valid, and worthy, to point out that America’s commitment to free expression has been a work in progress, and has been too often honored in the breach – especially in times of high civil tensions or peacetime foreign danger, when the most demanding tests of principle emerge. It’s just as important to remember the country’s history of slavery and denying the vote and other civil rights to non-whites and women (although Bollinger seems to distinguish these and similar major historic wrongs from anti-free-speech laws and policies per se, and in my view is analytically right to do so).

But it’s way off base to suggest that America before the mid-twentieth century was as thoroughly and fundamentally unfree and intolerant as modern Islamic theocracies and other majority Muslim countries, Russia, China and the like. And it’s positively dippy to contend, as Bollinger does, that free expression norms could spread strongly and quickly into such lands because of “the transition to a global society occurring today” that mirrors the prior transformation of “the United States into a truly national American society.” For a strong ideological consensus in favor of free expression already existed in the United States, and simply never developed in most of the rest of the world.

As a result, although Bollinger is right to warn against hastily “casting judgment on foreign governments and their people,” his article disturbingly indicates an overpowering reluctance to arrive at any reasonable, historically rooted judgments at all.

These truths are so self-evident that I feel almost embarrassed to articulate them. As a matter of fact, I suspect they’re evident to Bollinger, too, as well to the Washington Post editors who published his piece.  That they were apparently shunted aside by a prominent American academician and president of one of our greatest universities, and by the editors of a leading newspaper, in order to traffic in sophomoric moral equivalence, speaks volumes about what’s wrong with much of America’s guilt-ridden chattering classes. 

Making News: Podcast of Last Night’s John Batchelor Show Appearance

Tags

censorship, China, free expression, free speech, internet, Making News, non-tariff barriers, protectionism, technology, The John Batchelor Show, Trade, trade law, World Trade Organization

I’m pleased to post the podcast of my appearance last night on John Batchelor’s nationally syndicated radio show.  Click here for a fascinating discussion among John, co-host Gordon Chang, and yours truly on China’s internet censorship and its implications for not only global commerce, but the future of the web itself.  The segment starts at about the 10-minute mark.

Our So-Called Foreign Policy: Let’s Fight Terrorism with a Year (or More) of Spoofing Islam

Tags

Charlie Hebdo, France, free expression, free speech, Islam, jihadism, Muslims, Our So-Called Foreign Policy, Paris, terrorism

It’s something of a relief that most of the Western and even official Arab world reaction to the Charlie Hebdo attack has been outright and strong condemnation, rather than bleating or scolding about the consequences of offending religions and their followers. (Many major Muslim organizations have expressed outrage, too.)

Not that there haven’t been prominent exceptions. Here’s one, from USAToday. I’ve encountered another type on Twitter this morning, in the form of Economist correspondent David Rennie, who protested my claim that “Islam is a big part of the problem” responsible for much and even most contemporary terrorism.

It’s also been encouraging – and courageous and important – to see cartoonists publishing works in protest, and for media and other organizations, and individuals, to post the Charlie Hebdo drawings in question. Ensuring that they go viral is an excellent way to let the terrorists know that intimidation won’t work. Other global expressions of solidarity are grartifying, too.  But much more needs to be done on this score, for much longer.  

As I see it, it’s time to ramp up satirical treatment of Islam in all media. The aim would not be to offend Muslims for the sake of offending. Rather, it would be to show the extremists that the non-Muslim world’s determination to practice and support free speech is not simply rhetorical, and that it extends far beyond relatively small circles of cartoonists and other satirists of questionable taste.

So I suggest that the media and entertainment worlds declare a “Year of Spoofing Islam.” Cartoons, opinion columns, videos, television shows (calling Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, etc.!), full-length feature films (calling Seth Rogen!), and all other vehicles of expression poking fun at the religion, and at its leading historic and current figures, should be prominently and continually created and published.  And of course they should be endlessly disseminated through every possible channel. If the attacks don’t stop, the campaign should extend into a second year. And if necessary, a “Decade of Spoofing Islam” could go into effect.

Of course, national governments need to keep trying to neutralize terrorism. But I can’t imagine a better way to teach current and potential attackers a crucial lesson – and spur stronger efforts to stop them by their moderate co-religionists – than to make sure that whenever Muslims anywhere access any media, they’ll see and hear torrents of material lampooning their faith and all of its cultural and social manifestations.

Ridicule is one of the most powerful forces not only in politics but in life itself.  It should be especially effective versus a culture (and one of its perverse sub-cultures) that attaches such importance to maintaining face and avoiding shame. Let’s weaponize ridicule and start firing it big-time.  On top of striking symbolic blows for free expression, we’ll begin ensuring Islam’s collective understanding that, whether Muslims like the modern, secular world or not, they’d better make their peace with it.

In this spirit, here’s a link to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.