Tag: free speech

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture

Buzz-​Sawing the Conservative Treehouse

Big Tech, censorship, free speech, first amendment,

“They’re really showing their hand now, aren’t they?” 

That is how one blogger puts it. And the “They” are the leftward tech giants that provide platforms on which all of us can (in theory) have our say.

“They” — Google, Twitter, Facebook, WordPress — have provided these platforms in a country where freedom of speech is protected, if imperfectly, by the First Amendment and allied ideas, institutions, habits, and sensibilities.

But the First Amendment cannot, by itself, protect speakers of speech from having the rug yanked out from under them by these service providers. With increasing frequency and brazenness, the tech giants are de-​platforming speakers they disagree with despite past assurances of being open to all comers (not using speech to do anything illegal).

In this case, “they” means WordPress, which has notified a popular political blog, The Conservative Treehouse, that its days are numbered. Because “your site’s content and our terms” are incompatible, “you need to find a new hosting provider and must migrate the site by Wednesday, December 2.”

It took many years and, apparently, the (apparent) election of Joe Biden for WordPress to discover this “incompatibility.”

Says the Treehouse: “After ten years of brutally honest discussion, opinion, deep research and crowdsourcing work” by the site, WordPress can cite no violation of any term of service “because CTH has never violated one.”

So, what’s the upshot? At a minimum, if you’re using a big-​tech platform but aren’t toeing the big-​tech ideological line, seek alternatives. Pronto.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights ideological culture

The Latest Fake Mystery

alt tech, social media, MeWe, Gab, Parler

We Americans want to have our say, speak our piece — we do not wish to be gagged. No mystery to that. No puzzle. No strange, arcane, unexpected turn of our temper.

But that’s how it must seem to Nathan Bomey, author of “Parler, MeWe, Gab gain momentum as conservative social media alternatives in post-​Trump age,” gracing the pages of USA Today.

“America’s crisis of political segregation — we increasingly don’t live alongside, associate with or even marry people who think differently from us — is increasingly leading conservatives to congregate together on social media outlets designed specifically for people who think like them.”

This is a passage of surpassing dumbness.

To pick one fundamental ideological divide at random: capitalist twitterers have never had any problem with posting tweets “alongside” socialist twitterers. The problem is the growing censorship of tweets that officials and employees at tech giants like Twitter, Facebook, and Google happened to dislike or disagree with for any reason.

This censorship was revved up during the recent election.

Bomey does mention claims of censorship by the persons being censored, but treats these as the ravings of “the extremist crowd.” He adds: “Experts on political polarization say [the rise of alternative social media] is a natural outgrowth of our divided culture.…”

Again: a major reason the alternatives to Twitter etc. are gaining such traction is the censorship. People are leaving the Big-​Tech-​sponsored discourse because they are being censored. 

You don’t kick people out of the room and then scratch your head in wonderment, asking, “Gee willikers, why are you guys going away?”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

N.B. I have Minds and Gab accounts, but do not use them. Should I start again? I just set up a MeWe account. What alternative social media apps do you use?

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Thought

Something to Hate

hate speech, free speech, surveillance, freedom

Headline: “Hate talk in homes ‘must be prosecuted.’”

“Must”?

The proposed legislation targets speech alleged to promote prejudice. It is backed by Scotland’s secretary for justice, Humza Yousaf.

Might the law be deployed to squelch debate regarding, say, radical Islam?

“Are we comfortable giving a defence to somebody whose behaviour is threatening or abusive, which is intentionally stirring up hatred against, for example, Muslims?” Yousaf asks. “Are we saying that that is justified because that is in the home?”

I suspect that here we have someone who has never attended a sizable family gathering. Many attendees might report “hate talk” but oppose fining or imprisoning the so-​called hate-talkers.

Could the law be directed against journalists and others who publicly express loves and hatreds?

“We wouldn’t want to give the likes of Tommy Robinson a defence by saying that he’s ‘a blogger who writes for The Patriot Times,’” says Yousaf.

“Stirring up hatred” is, of course, not identical to threatening or instigating violence. Presumably it is already illegal in Scotland to plan murder and mayhem over the dinner table.

There’s an awful lot of speech out there with which we might vehemently disagree. Plenty of dumb, hateful, prejudice-​laden speech that violates the rights of no one does get uttered in homes and Internets. We must preserve the distinction between “things that are wrong to say or do” and “actions that should be illegal.”

Scots should resist these hateful assaults on their right to speak freely.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people

The Itch to Edit

Glenn Greenwald

There is a place in this world for editors, but not for censors. 

What’s the difference?

Ask Glenn Greenwald: “editors should be there to empower and enable strong, highly factual, aggressive adversarial journalism, not to serve as roadblocks to neuter or suppress the journalism.”

This is from Greenwald’s statement, this week, about his resignation from The Intercept. 

Greenwald co-​founded the online journalistic platform in 2013, with the proviso that he could publish what he wanted with minimal interference. But slowly, over time, the editors he and his co-​founders put in place have flouted the spirit as well as (Greenwald insists) the letter of those original agreements. So much so that they refused to publish a piece by Greenwald unless he removed “all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.”

Greenwald has published that “censored” article on Substack, a platform you may be familiar with for publishing Greenwald’s fellow leftist journo, Matt Taibbi.

This fracas is not a public issue, in one sense. Greenwald lost control of an institution he set up. That’s between him and that institution and all their lawyers.

But it does show the extent to which “the pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of [Greenwald] being censored by [his] own media outlet are … the viruses that have contaminated virtually every mainstream center-​left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom.”

We can understand why they might desperately itch to hourly edit the Twitterer in Chief. But it is a bit harder to understand that while they complain Trump has broken with established “norms,” they themselves violate long-​established norms of their own profession.

I mean journalism.

Not propaganda.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights

Protest Hits the Pavement

Black Lives Matter, Washington D.C.

Social justice activists and Washington D.C. city officials have collaborated to paint the slogan “Black Lives Matter” on 16th Street near the White House. 

The city has also allowed the words “Defund the Police” to be painted on the street.

Does this mean that the roadways of our nation’s capital city are now a public forum accessible to anyone who files the proper forms?

So far, doesn’t look like it. 

So Judicial Watch (JW) is suing for the right to paint its own motto, “Because No One is Above the Law,” on a DC street. JW went to court because its applications to perform a similar paint job have fallen on deaf ears.

It contends that its First Amendment right of freedom of speech is being violated.

“We have been patient,” Judicial Watch says. “We also have been flexible. We have stated our willingness to paint our motto at a different location if street closure is necessary and the city is unwilling to close our chosen location. All we ask is that we be afforded the same opportunity to paint our message on a DC street that has been afforded the painters on 16th Street.”

I can’t wait until all this gets cleared up. I suppose it’ll be one or two paint jobs per applicant. 

“ThisisCommonSense​.org” has a nice ring to it, eh? 

Something about “unalienable rights [to] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” would also be a great message, assuming it’s still legal to quote the Founders whose legacy we celebrated over the weekend.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

A Modest Extrapolation

civil rights, discrimination, 1st Amendment, free speech,

The big news from yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions (in June, they typically come in chunks) regards discrimination law, in which the court decided, 6 – 3, with Neil Gorsuch writing the majority opinion, that discrimination “against an employee for being gay or transgender violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” As covered at Reason it makes for fascinating reading.

Still, there are many problems here. The whole employment discrimination issue assumes that people have a right to be judged suitable for employment based only on strict consideration of job performance.

This is intrusive into private decision-​making, and opens up hiring and firing to huge legal costs.

But a bigger issue lurks here.

It is now commonplace for employees to be fired under public pressure for merely having political opinions that have little or nothing to do with their jobs.

Anti-​discrimination civil rights law was designed to curb this sort of thing — public pressure for reasons of antipathy and social mania — but only on a limited number of criteria, racism and sexism against protected groups being the areas carved out.

Since we have a First Amendment right to speak, mightn’t that right be applied via discrimination law to prohibit mob deplatforming or resulting loss of employment?

Sure, 1964’s Civil Rights Act limited the scope of its intervention into employment contracts and the “public accommodations” realm of commerce to the above-​mentioned isms, on grounds of a long history of bigotry and invidious private discrimination. But right now, that sort of discrimination is primarily an ideological matter, not racial or sexual. 

Extending the scope of the First Amendment via an anti-​discrimination rationale would seem a natural.

At least for those who favor consistent government intervention over freedom. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts