In that post, I linked to a post of mine from March 27, 2011 — "The Bob Wright/Ann Althouse email exchange about what free speech means in the context of saying Roger Ailes needs to kick Glenn Beck off Fox News" — so that shouldn't be what Browndog means. There I said:
Back on February 2, I wrote “When did the left turn against free speech?” and used some clips from a Bloggingheads I did with Bob Wright, in which I talked about free speech values and rejected Bob's attempt to restrict the idea of free speech to the constitutional right to free speech, which only deals with the problem of government restrictions on speech. The text of my post, however, doesn't restate our disagreement about the meaning of the term, and Bob emailed me to complain. And then last Friday, I did another Bloggingheads, and Bob brought up his beef about the definition of the term again. So I invited him to give me permission to publish the whole email exchange, and he agreed, so here goes...That's a long post, but I think this is closest to what Browndog was looking for:
My standard free speech answer is going to be in favor of expression, access to expression, and more speech, not repression of speech and not cutting off conversations that are still in play because they offend some other people who think the conversation should have already ended....Maybe that is what Browndog had in mind, but I looked through the archive. (My method was to click on the Facebook tag, then search the page for "free.") Here's what I came up with, from oldest to newest:
So if Google or Facebook, private corporations, took steps to squelch free speech[,] that would just not even make sense to you as a concept because they can't affect free speech since they are not the government? If people organized and regularly showed up at events to shout down speakers they disapproved of, it would be incoherent to urge them to respect free speech[?]...
As for the right to free speech, the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Just on that text alone, you can see that there are 2 different things "the freedom of speech" and the specific direction to Congress not to abridge it. Now, if you say freedom of speech is nothing more than the direction to government not to abridge the freedom of speech, try to picture what the text would need to be: "Congress shall make no law... abridging Congress's proscription against abridging the freedom of speech" which would make no sense at all. The freedom of speech is something which we enjoy, and the Constitution bars Congress's interference with it.
January 3, 2009: There was Facebook group called "I Wonder How Quickly I Can Find 1,000,000 People Who Support Israel" that, noting that the First Amendment only limits government, pressured Facebook to enforce its own Terms of Use that barred "any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable." I said:
Sorry. My free speech values extend a lot farther than what's protected by the First Amendment. And I think Facebook's Terms of Use are horrifyingly restrictive. Censoring everything "hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable"? Ridiculous! I'd rather join a Facebook group called "Facebook's Terms of Use Are an Affront to Free Speech."January 16, 2015: "After the [Paris] massacre, Mark Zuckerberg justifies Facebook censorship":
"It wasn’t just a terrorist attack about just trying to do some damage and make people afraid and hurt people. This was specifically about people’s freedom of expression and ability to say what they want. That really gets to the core of what Facebook and the internet are, I think, and what we’re all here to do. We really stand up and try to make it so that everyone can have as much of a voice as possible,” [Zuckerberg] said....April 16, 2016: "Internal poll at Facebook: 'What responsibility does Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?'"
When I started to read Zuckerberg's remarks, I thought they were going to go somewhere else. I thought he was going to say that by creating a more friendly environment within Facebook, more people would be encouraged to join and participate, and that would ultimately provide more speech for more people. The nasty, ugly speech would be silenced, but it could go elsewhere, and he was trying to facilitate speech by those who feel intimated or bullied or offended by the speech of others. But Zuckerberg is only justifying Facebook censorship as a response to repression coming from foreign governments.
It is true that Facebook would be protected by the First Amendment, even as it screwed with the freedom of speech of over a billion human beings. What's tremendously important here is to maintain pressure on Facebook to respect our freedom. We don't have a legal right to assert against Facebook, but that is absolutely not a reason to give up and let Facebook do what it wants to repress speech. We have moral, political, social, and economic power, and we should assert it. We assert it through — of all things — speech. It can be very effective... which is why we care about free speech in the first place. Even where you don't have a legal right, as long as you are still speaking, you have the power of speech, and the urge to repress it occurs because the speech is effective. The trick is to use speech to convince the would-be repressers not to repress speech.November 15, 2016: "Facebook, don't even try to censor fake news. You can't draw that line, and you shouldn't want to":
I absolutely do not trust Facebook to decide what's fake and what's not fake, so I'm with Zuckerberg here... The chance that such a power would be used in a politically biased way is approximately 100%. I don't know how much Zuckerberg is really committed to the freedom of speech, but I think he knows if Facebook started deeming some political stories "fake" and taking action against them, Facebook would be accused of bias and censorship and it wouldn't be good for Facebook, the business.... Those of us who care about freedom of speech should try to make it vividly apparent to the people of Facebook that censorship will hurt them economically. You can't trust them to believe in freedom of speech. They've already got a heated-up, self-righteous band of insiders who think censorship is the cutting edge.ADDED: I realize that my search method left out everything that didn't include Facebook, which is probably a lot. One reader emailed to point me to...
Camille Paglia says the Duck Dynasty debate really is about freedom of speech.
She said:
"I speak with authority here because I was openly gay before the 'Stonewall Rebellion,' when it cost you something to be so... And I personally feel as a libertarian that people have the right to free thought and free speech. In a democratic country, people have the right to be homophobic as they have the right to support homosexuality — as I 100 percent do. If people are basing their views against gays on the Bible, again they have a right to religious freedom there … to express yourself in a magazine in an interview -– this is the level of punitive PC, utterly fascist, utterly Stalinist, OK, that my liberal colleagues in the Democratic Party and on college campuses have supported and promoted over the last several decades. It's the whole legacy of the free speech 1960's that have been lost by my own party."Meanwhile, some liberals are making the predictable narrowly legalistic point that freedom of speech has only to do with rights held against the government. This is a point I've strongly objected to over the years, most obviously, in debating the liberal Bob Wright (see "When did the left turn against freedom of speech?" and "[W]hat free speech means in the context of saying Roger Ailes needs to kick Glenn Beck off Fox News"). Why is the left taking the narrow view of the concept of freedom? It's a general principle, not something you save for your friends. Like Paglia, I remember the broad 1960s era commitment to free speech. There was a special zeal to protect those who said outrageous things. Today, we're back to the kind of repression that in the 60s seemed to belong to the 1950s. What the hell happened?
Posts
67 comments:
"We don't have a legal right to assert against Facebook"
I would add "yet". Antitrust laws were put in place when companies got so big that they held powers over an individual similar to governments. Facebook (and a few others) exercise government like power over communication because they are so big, they also have government level resources to quash individuals. It seems reasonable that they should either be broken up (my preference) or significantly regulated. Under regulation the voters have power over Facebook because the voters have power over the regulators.
Bob's attempt to restrict the idea of free speech to the constitutional right to free speech, which only deals with the problem of government restrictions on speech
You might have won the debate on points, but obviously Wright's side has carried the day, and attacks on the Bill of Rights are being led by the left and taking non-government forms. For example, denying businesses that sell guns banking services. Facebook is being drawn and quartered for allowing Trump to use it the same way Obama did, etc, etc, etc.
I love this littel explanation by a lefty Katherine Hayhoe, of how to discuss climate change:
When it comes to climate change denialism, Hayhoe tends to defer to social scientists. “They’ve found that more education doesn’t change people’s perceptions—that in fact, the people with the highest degree of science literacy aren’t the ones who are most concerned, but rather, the most polarized. Because those people can muster evidence to explain why they’re right, too.”
...
What about when you get stuck? Say you’ve landed on shared values—you and a climate denier agree the weather has been wild, but they just insist, “Oh, it’s just part of the natural cycle.” What then?
Here’s where you pivot and move on, beyond what they disagree on, to something you both agree on. You might offer one phrase of dissent—perhaps, “According to natural cycles we should be cooling down right now, not warming.” But then, before the conversation becomes a game of whack-a-mole, change the subject.
Yes, change the subject before the other person points out that a cooling planet, starting from the Little Ice Age, would be a catastrophe for mankind!
Doesn't bother her a bit that the science on which she is basing her entire movement is full of holes. That's old values, caring about logic and evidence.
You are never going to tear down the master's house with the master's tools." Power is important, and logic, and evidence, freedom to think what you want and to hear all of the ideas, and choose among them according you your own reason and lights? That's not going to get the job done of tearing down the master's house and building the new socialist utopia?
It's about faith in socialism.
Yes. The BoR does not create rights. The BoR prevents the govt from using its power to infringe of the actions of its citizens. Rights that are inherent in all people. While there is no restriction on what private groups do (that would require the govt to enforce, thus giving the govt more power, not less) you either believe in the inherent rights of people, or like FB, you know that having the power to declare speech objectionable, is too attractive a power to wield over others
Antitrust laws were put in place when companies got so big that they held powers over an individual similar to governments.
Who is going to take on Google, or Bezos, for that matter? Nobody. What billionaires desperately need from government are people who can be bought. Since what they have to offer is money. A certain recent candidate for President comes to mind.
With lefties, it's "Keep your eyes on the prize." Not logic and evidence, those two things weigh heavily against the left. Just look at Venezuela.
Every so often, big companies do the right thing. My posts were being automatically removed for almost three months. Google/Blogger should realize that sending me some money will go a long way towards forgiveness.
They are willing to tear down the system that has reduced poverty by the most of any economic system in the history of mankind because they are upset that their neighbor might make more money than they do. Socialism comes from emotions that evolved living in tiny bands of humans in the wilderness. Those emotions don't apply today, but they remain powerful. Basically, we are doomed to a Stalinist future brought on by well intentioned people who are too stupid to see it coming.
This post is very interesting and timely for me. I just got banned from a Creighton basketball message board by a vote. 39-11.
In an off topic forum I have engaged in a long debate about global warming. I’m a skeptic, to put it mildly.
The proximate cause of my banning was a poll I posted as to whether the AD should hire a group of outsiders to examine why Creighton keeps losing in the NCAA tournament. We got blasted by K State. Last year we lost to Rhode Island. Neither game was close.
I proposed that the group would be called The Committee on Cruel Neutrality. It would be headed by either (or both) former Creighton coaches Tony Barone or Connie Yori. Barone coached Porter Moser who now coaches at Loyola. Moser is one win away from the Final Four. Yori was fired at Nebraska (allegedly) for being too tough on her players. All she did was win like crazy,
My poll got pulled. Too controversial, I guess.
The poll to ban me alleged that I was spamming the board. I posted a comment defining spam and that I did no such thing.
One guy called me a dipshit and another called me a moron. I pointed out that they were violating the TOS by using vulgar language and being offensive towards me. I said they should be banned. No luck.
I think the whole thing is funny in some respects, but it is also frightening. I have no recourse. Just like with Facebook. The clowns that run the site can kick me out. But there is no doubt in my mind that the reason I was kicked out was because I’m a conservative. My basketball posts were all free of politics.
It is remarkable that college educated people are so openly hostile to diverse views. They would not tolerate opposing views. Groupthink. One must conform.
There is a competing Creighton basketball message board but it costs money. I might join next season.
I will also note that the board has many lurkers and they didn’t vote.
I was hated by those people. This board has a much better level of comments. While I am glad to be completely disassociated from those creeps it is a sad and dangerous commentary about the land of the free in 2018.
One consideration that should be recognized is that there really is such a phenomenon as "fake news". There are people who concoct webpages that look like newspaper articles reporting events that have been invented. Then links to those webpages are introduced into Facebook, where they spread like viruses.
These are not articles about cute cats, they are articles about alleged crimes that are outrageous.
I myself fell for one such article and posted it on my Facebook page, and I appreciated being notified by Facebook that it was fake.
To the extent that Facebook has acted to correct the spread of such links among its readers, Facebook is doing a public service.
Of course, there is a danger that Facebook eventually would expand that effort to controversial political articles.
Not logic and evidence,?
The main reason that I still insist that Althouse is a Leftwinger is her rejection of logic and insistence that reasoning should include emotion. She has also stated that text should not have an objective meaning but should be instead a gestalt that includes the reader's emotional reaction.
Zipf's law could be used to argue they're a public carrier.
Zipf's law implies roughly that a few sites get all the traffic, not because of themselves particularly, but because people go where other people go, and the top sites get almost all the traffic with only tiny traffic to the thousands of other sites.
So their position is not from competing but from a dice roll, once they're a top site.
TiV.
Leftism, Socialism, etc. are based on the idea that society as a whole is filled with peasants and peasants need to be instructed by their betters. Un fortunately under Socialism ,,and all it's various incarnations, is run by the very same peasants who cannot think out of the peasant box. The left really does think you're a dumbshit because the left is led by dumbshits.
Re the freedom of speech. facebook is a private institution and can do what it wants. The power of the consumer can go a long way however in adjusting facebooks free speech policies. There are alternatives. Use them.
Right now I'm more concerned about the violence on the left in suppression of free speech.
The main reason that I still insist that Althouse is a Leftwinger is her rejection of logic and insistence that reasoning should include emotion.
She's a liberal, not a "left-winger." Conservatives should guard the meanings of words as best they can. Left-wingers don't give a rip about free speech for all. Trust deplorables with free speech? They are too corrupted by their own self-interest!
"Althouse also wrote a blog post about how free speech is much, much more than just a 1st Amendment protection."
And my right to own a gun goes beyond the 2nd Amendment. And my right to be judged fairly goes beyond the 4th and 5th.
The the country was founded on inalienable rights, not where a comma was placed in the Constitution or whether it was still relevant if the person putting it there was a white male.
based on the idea that society as a whole is filled with peasants and peasants need to be instructed by their betters.
Hence their opposition to a wall. We have a desperate need for more peasants!
I hope Browndog appreciates the effort that went in to your response. Above and beyond.
As to Zipf’s law, I remember reading a while back that the creator of Gawker would place fake banner-ads from seemingly high-end companies on the site to create the appearance of traffic. GUCCI. Sounds about right.
I also remember reading Peter Thiel opine that the heady, innovative days of Silicon Valley were gone, and it was about managing a lot of 2nd and 3rd order problems (people, money, relationships and politics). Thiel’s involved with a lot of politics, too, these days.
And then there is yelling fire in crowded theaters. Which is like asking the owners of guns to shoot the President who won the election if he dares to exercise his authority to fire a Federal Employee. Hmmm. AR-15s as speech means limitation of ammo sales, censoring Youtube instructional videos and outlawing sales of larger magazines are forbiden to the Government.
Napoleon once taught the citizens of France what real gun speech was: his 40 pounder seige artillery pieces firing grape shot down the once narrow streets of Paris.
Somebody said pornhub is starting a gun channel, in response to youtube banning gun videos.
There's your free speech site.
Instapundit I think.
We’re gonna need new frontiers to keep uncovering the best people and the best in people (poles, extreme environments, space).
Human ignorance, righteous states of belief and mind, boredom, folly and the grubbiness and occasional nobility of politics are never hard to find.
Under regulation the voters have power over Facebook because the voters have power over the regulators.
No we don’t. We have power over Congress, but Congress has learned to give the power of regulation to unelected career bureaucrats so they can escape blame. We have no power over the bureaucracy.
Isn't there some law that was used against the KKK that said something like conspiracy to deprive someone of a constitutional right.
Isn't FB, Twitter, YouTube, etc trying to deprive conservatives free speech. Isn't CitiBank trying to deprive people of their right to self defense?
T or F? Google (and other similar platforms) should be legally bound by the same rules regarding free speech as the United States government? That's the debate I want to hear.
Big companies want regulation. It raises costs to smaller competitors without bothering them much, since they have a big legal staff to arrange things and the small competitors don't.
I think what we're seeing with Facebook right now is an extortion conspiracy by the Democrat party. They want to run the country like they run the colleges.
Paranoid?
Why is it ok for Facebook to deny my right to get a cake baked with a message I want On it?
Wouldn't it be nice if there were a single set of rules?
Backdoor internet regulation is just as bad as straightforward net neutrality bull shit.
First it was whether you had to decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Now it is whether Facebook can ban you for not taking the right side if you were to discuss this issue on Facebook.
The arc of the Internet bends to Big Brother.
The Germans have a word for this.
In normal business dynamics, profit gets competed away as the business ages. Competitors keep coming in so long as there's a decent profit opportunity.
The result is that nobody in the business has a decent profit opportunity at the end. Investing in something else is always better, at that point. Fixed and sunk costs keep the business going but it's not a good business.
Regulation stops the process while the existing business is still profitable, by keeping out competition.
I see Birkel had the same radio waves going through his head.
Which means the voices in my head are cheating on me.
The Germans have a word for this.
They want to change Facebook from an open social media platform into a paving contractor for the Road To Hell infrastructure project.
"rhhardin said...
"Somebody said pornhub is starting a gun channel, in response to youtube banning gun videos."
Pornhub makes no judgement about the porn you watch.
Perhaps all the outcasts of Facebook can pick a particular porn video on which to meet and exchange comments.
So you can watch a small white girl ravaged by a big black cock while below you are engaged in a heated discussion about Global Warming.
All in the same window this time.
The Germans have a word for this.
Luke Lea:
If Facebook or Google receives federal funding, Congress may condition such receipt on whatever it prefers.
Congress can fix this issue but their preferences run opposite free and open dialogue. They enjoy the elected representative protection racket. Clear communication runs counter to their interests, after all.
Gahrie: The main reason that I still insist that Althouse is a Leftwinger is her rejection of logic and insistence that reasoning should include emotion.
If you want to carry that through you need to tighten up your claims and ditch your sloppy handling of the reason v. emotion stuff. Human reasoning does involve emotion, that's just the way the machinery works at a physical, neurological level, no "should" or "should not" about it. Althouse is wrong on this stuff, too, but she's wrong at a different level, not on the basic claim that emotion is involved in reasoning.
Anybody who thinks his political views are strictly rationally arrived at is deluding himself.
2+2=4 :(
"So you can watch a small white girl ravaged by a big black cock while below you are engaged in a heated discussion about Global Warming.
All in the same window this time."
That's what I like about you, you're so optimistic. You're like what Pollyanna would have been if she'd immersed herself in porn and politics.
I'm confused, the same folks who demeaned Facebook in other posts now complain they don't allow "free speech". If you don't like it then don't patronize it.
You all are able to ridicule TTR and Inga and they're able to give it right back. All the same the Professor could ban any of you. You stay because you like it; you're satisfied customers
rhhardin: Somebody said pornhub is starting a gun channel, in response to youtube banning gun videos.
There's your free speech site.
So the day is coming when I'll have to do all my browsing through pornhub.
Not only does Clown World make bedfellows stranger than we know, it will make bedfellows stranger than we can know. (To paraphrase and traduce Haldane.)
Luke Lea said...
T or F? Google (and other similar platforms) should be legally bound by the same rules regarding free speech as the United States government?
As a private entity, Fecebook should be held to the same standards that you are held to. Can you delete files from your computer if you feel like it? Or decide not to forward an email that someone wants you to forward? Or not connect to certain websites because you don't feel like it?
I agree with AA's overall defense, but the First Amendment restricted the powers of Congress, not the states. It left open how the "rights" mentioned would be regulated at the lower level and practiced in everyday life. It was an exercise in negative, not positive liberty.
Of course, the states got incorporated etc. etc., in one of those nifty living-constitution moves that makes us all admire the "rule of law" in these United States.
"If you don't like it then don't patronize it."
Sure. And I don't. But what about the Parties having access to Facebook data for elections? Should Facebook choose a side and only help one party? They could do that, right?
So you can watch a small white girl ravaged by a big black cock ...
For some time I have suspected that The Germans Have a Word for That is Laszlo.
Resolved: Fecebook should be required to bake birthday cakes with expressive content about the wonderfulness of homosexuals written in rainbow icing.
The cake was a good example since the government is required to bake the same kind of cake for everyone, which is no cake at all. Equal caketection. Let them eat Fecebook, but don't lose your head over it.
Bob Boyd said...
Should Facebook choose a side and only help one party?
Sure. Don't millions of people do exactly that?
Some aspects of freedom aren't always positive, but a somewhat corrupted or unfair free expression is better than no freedom, especially since the urge to control others by restricting their actions with (the threat of) force seems hard to satisfy. Since controlling others thru threats doesn't work very well, there's always more controlling to do, and you might be next. Kinda like communism.
If you want to carry that through you need to tighten up your claims and ditch your sloppy handling of the reason v. emotion stuff. Human reasoning does involve emotion, that's just the way the machinery works at a physical, neurological level, no "should" or "should not" about it. Althouse is wrong on this stuff, too, but she's wrong at a different level, not on the basic claim that emotion is involved in reasoning.
The precise purpose of reason is to eliminate or at least reduce the role of emotion in thought and decision making. Saying that reason should include emotion is like saying getting wet should be part of drying off.
I'm not denying that humans think emotionally. I'm not even claiming that doing so is bad. (although in most cases it is) I'm simply denying the ridiculous proposition that emotion should be part of the process of eliminating emotion.
"The main reason that I still insist that Althouse is a Leftwinger is her rejection of logic and insistence that reasoning should include emotion."
It's not a question of "should." It's only a matter of seeing what is. Try reading about brain science.
It's not a question of "should." It's only a matter of seeing what is. Try reading about brain science.
In the past you have made statements saying that emotion should be a valid part of reason...that is my exact objection.
The whole purpose of reason is to reduce or eliminate emotion in thinking. It is why it was created.
If you are now amending your assertion to "Despite man's efforts to reduce emotion through reasoning, emotion is still a part of thinking and decision making" that is an entirely different thought.
@Althouse:
I believe that you also believe that emotion is just as valid as reason when it comes to thinking and decision making right?
t's not a question of "should." It's only a matter of seeing what is. Try reading about brain science.
Brain science doesn't use reason.
Women's reason is based mostly on fuzz.
"For some time I have suspected that The Germans Have a Word for That is Laszlo."
That's been pretty apparent from the beginning. I'm also 99% sure that the 4Chan guy posting on last night's cafe thread is also the Man of 1000 Faces.
1) The purpose of reasoning and logic is to reduce or eliminate emotion in thinking.
2) Despite reason and logic, emotion still plays a role in thinking.
3) Reasoning and logical thinking are preferable to thinking emotionally.
There is a reason we used to teach courses in high school and college on logic and rhetoric. (Which ended when the Left took control of those institutions)
I don't understand all of the confusion about Facebook. It was a data collection site that offers shiny objects to entice people to share there personal information to sell to the highest bidder. Why its getting confused with 1st amendment rights & the market place of ideas is beyond me. I have been a member since 2007 and use it as a way to connect with friends and family. It could go away tomorrow and I wouldn't care. The fundamental error people are making is thinking Facebook is reality and should allow all manners of expression. Its a closed sandbox, get over it and act accordingly.
I like this post, Althouse. It's a good follow-up to your earlier posts on the topic over the past couple of days which I found a bit hard to read.
Yours is a very interesting voice on free speech issues. Thank you for sharing it with us.
Gahrie: I'm not denying that humans think emotionally. I'm not even claiming that doing so is bad. (although in most cases it is)
Well, it's certainly bad as manifested in your whole commment @8:34, which is a good example of what happens when people don't exercise mastery over the kind of emotional intrusion into their reasoning processes which is within their conscious control.
Try re-reading what you wrote when you're less emotionally over-heated and see if you can spot your errors in reasoning. (As responses to other people's statements here, not the irrational lefty in your head.)
I am merely pointing out to you that you continually make a blanket claim about the nature of human reasoning which is false. Stop making that claim, and look (dispassionately!) for where you might be making higher-order claims based on that false premise. (E.g., in some of your statements in this thread, the claim is implicit even in your claim that you're aren't making that claim.)
Once you've sorted that out, you'll be able to make much better arguments against Althouse re her views on the role of emotion in reasoning. Happy disputations!
I am merely pointing out to you that you continually make a blanket claim about the nature of human reasoning which is false.
If the purpose of reason is not to eliminate or reduce the use of emotion in thinking....what is its purpose?
Gahrie: If the purpose of reason is not to eliminate or reduce the use of emotion in thinking....what is its purpose?
Your false claim is about the nature of the reasoning process, not the purpose of reason. Do you understand the difference? (Though I would have thought that the purpose of reason was to get at the truth, not to construct falsely-premised syllogisms in the service of the stubborn avoidance of fact.)
I recommend a dip into some basic neuroscience, and a meditation on "not even wrong".
There is a reason we used to teach courses in high school and college on logic and rhetoric.
Yeah, I know. I came up through that system, It actually "took" with me, though.
When the Social Jackboot Whiners finish their hobbling of the Internet the only remaining bastions of Free Speech will be 4chan and Althouse.
Sure, you may be side-by-side with seedy characters, but sometimes you go to war with whoever is standing by you.
The Germans have a word for this.
I commented on an article by Michael Barone several nights ago in one of Ann’s overnight cafes. The article pointed to research that a majority of males on campus statistically supported free speech, while a majority of females supported suppressing free speech if it could offend right thinking women (and probably most of all, if it offended feminists). Essentially using peer pressure the stifle dissenting voices. And, I think that there is something there. Think of how the left is using peer pressure, othering, etc, to set the debate and, most importantly, to stifle dissenting voices.
That got me thinking of my experiences in high school, when every Friday during football season would be a sea of light blue and gold in the halls. Those were the school colors, and probably 95% of the girls belonged to Pep Club, and wore matching uniforms (except for the really popular ones who were cheer leaders or Pom Pom girls, who had special outfits in the same colors to set them apart as special). Asked my girlfriend at the time, who was normally somewhat nonconformist, why she participated. She said it was just easier. No shaming. No othering. The football players wore their letter jackets, but the rest of us guys just dressed normally, but many of us were a bit dumbfounded at the girl’s herd mentality. And that was really the first time that I realized how different males and females were in regards to peer pressure, conformity, and herd mentality.
One of the big points of the Bill of Rights is the protection of minorities from majority rule. Maybe, from my previous paragraph, it is obvious, in retrospect that only men voted to enact it (because we were better than a century then from giving women the vote). But education in general, and esp higher education here, have become significantly feminized. The female way of working with people is to work within a group to, on the one hand impose conformity, and on the other hand change the consensus to be what they want. The male way is more independent, saying or doing what you want, and letting the chips fall as they may. So, now a lot of them still formally espouse independence of thought and speech, but more and more practice rule by mob action, by enforcing RightThink through peer pressure, enforced conformity, etc, and, if that doesn’t work, expelling the (usually male) recalcitrants. And, no matter how many Anns there are out there in academia, it isn’t going to get any better as long as there are more women than men there.
The text of the First Amendment -- "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" -- conveys the idea that the Amendment is preserving "the freedom of speech" already understood and recognized at the time. Yet this is one of the few Amendments for which the SCOTUS (even its most devoted textualists) has not scoured 18th century usage to determine its scope and meaning.
Likewise, the history of the Amendment's enforcement (or lack thereof) is not used as a guide to its application today. Shortly after the Amendment was adopted, for example, the Alien and Sedition Acts became law and were enforced. Yet that episode, like so much in the history of the Amendment's first 150 years (Debs v. US (1919) being a particular low point), is regarded with embarrassment today, rather than an indicator of how the free speech clause should be understood.
That's a strong indication of how central the idea of "freedom of speech" has become in American culture. It's the rare provision of the Constitution that today's SCOTUS (again, even its devoted textualists) approaches in a 'living constitution' sort of way, without, of course, anyone's ever putting it that way.
Private players who want to enforce anti-American speech restrictions are bound to face a much stronger backlash than they anticipated, as the would-be censors on American campuses and various social media platforms are discovering to their discomfort.
"BEIJING/SHANGHAI (Reuters) - China's media regulator is cracking down on video spoofs ["fake news"?], the official Xinhua new agency reported, amid an intensified crackdown on any content that is deemed to be in violation of socialist core values under President Xi Jinping."
So in other words, people have the whole fucking internet to use, but they ALL decide to go to ONE Place -Facebook - to interact.
Thereby putting themselves at the mercy of some character called "Zuckerberg"
Crazy.
I thought it was obvious that The Germans was Laslo. And thank God for that. Althouse comments without Laslo is like having a Nazi girlfriend who doesn't like anal.
Sorry, Laszlo.
I was distracted by a ponytail swish.
Post a Comment