Okay, not a crime but a tort. But the whole spread of "yeah, somewhere in that T&C section that everyone clicks through because who's going to ready twenty pages of small print legalese before running that program you've just downloaded is a clause that says that if you say anything mean about the product / service / vendor you will be liable to penalties" thing is a bit of corporate sleaze that needs to be killed. With fire.
"Look, you have freedom of speech, but you can't go this far"
There's a very, very, very fuzzy line about how one represents one's employer when one is functioning in the public square. We've seen a lot of folks get in trouble over saying things in social media that their superiors (and/or the public) though reflected poorly on their workplace.
The most recent result of that is the Kansas Board of Regents revising their social media guidelines. Now employees (including University of Kansas professors) not only can't say anything that might create violence or disclose private or confidential information, but can't say anything that is "contrary to the best interests of the university."
Which will be judged, of course, by the Board of Regents.
Now, an employer has to look after its interests — and, in this case, the Board of Regents is apparently pretty darned scared of the Kansas Legislature, which holds the purse strings (just as the governor appoints the regents), and which had prominent members up in arms about a particular tweet by a faculty member after a shooting: "The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters." The lege, and some of the public, went bonkers, leading Rep. Travis Couture-Lovelady of the Kansas Legislature to utter that lovely quote in the headline, in support of the new social media policy, adding, "I think having a clear understanding between faculty and the board of regents on what's acceptable and what's not is better for everyone involved."
I.e., don't say anything in public that might get the public upset.
What's particularly galling about this is how the regents and pols are trying to paint it as increasing "academic freedom" — apparently by providing clear guidelines about what you can't freely talk about. Except, of course, they don't. "Academic freedom" isn't defined by what the taxpayers or their elected representatives might get upset about. If you are looking after the "best interests" of the university, you are not acting freely. If posting an anti-NRA tweet is "contrary to the best interests of the university," then what about a tweet about climate change, or gay rights, or political candidates, or religion, or evolution?
(And, yes, that goes both ways as far as political orientation. I'd like to think I'd be just as outraged if someone who tweeted a very strong pro-NRA message in a very liberal state were being slapped down by a formal policy of this sort. _Especially_ where the employer imposing the policy is, in fact, the government.)
The only restrictions I can think of that might possibly be legitimate, aside from the other caveats in the policy would be making public statements that might cause serious concern among students or employees about whether contrary opinions (or simply being of the wrong race, faith, orientation, origin) might be dangerous to their grades or their employment — in some ways, exactly what this policy does. Of course, being on the outs with the prof, for whatever reason, is always risky — and sooner or later that means that opinions are going to bump up against each other, sometimes with unpleasant consequences.
But that's part of what academic freedom is about. Something that the Kansas legislature and Board of Regents seem to be forgetting in their desire to make "don't rock the boat" the foundation of speech and liberty (and the irony there for ostensibly liberty-loving conservatives is even more galling).
In Kansas, Professors Must Now Watch What They Tweet
Last fall, a University of Kansas professor criticized the National Rifle Association in a tweet. Wednesday, the Kansas Board of Regents approved a strict social media policy for university employees.
Because, of course, when you crudely parody the mayor of Peoria on Twitter, you should expect the police to raid your house and charge you with any other crime they can dredge up with full access to your dwelling, your phones, computers, and online records. This is, after all, America.
Even if it's for a good cause. And the reasons are lined out here pretty well — defining broad classes of speech in a way that won't lead to unintended consequences or discriminatory prosecution is incredibly difficult.
Soon, it could be a criminal matter to call someone a ‘sexist’ in Belgium. Even if someone may in fact be one. Why, you ask? Because the country’s political majority is determined to enact a new law. In what is believed to be the first legislation of its type, anywhere, the concept of sexism will be rendered punishable.
A logical side effect of making sexism illegal is that the simple act of accusing someone of being sexist, may amount to criminal defamation. Under Belgian law, as in many other legal systems, it is an offense to accuse someone of having committed crimes that they were not actually convicted for. Law is often a double-edged sword.
In addition to this, the bill is superfluous and it poses major risks to free speech.
Navy accidentally sends reporter an internal memo describing how to block his FOIA request.
The apologized and tweeted (several times!) about how committed they are to free and open access. Uh huh.
Navy Apologizes After Mistakenly Sent Email
U.S. Navy officials have issued an apology for their response to a News4 reporter’s request for materials related to the September 2013 Navy Yard shooting rampage.
Wow. That's pretty not-being-free stuff right there. (Yeah, it's to keep "classified material" off of unsecured military system — material that's available on the computers of everyone at home. Yeesh.)
This is really a shocking story — not that it happened so much as that the person who did it was so open about it. Pennsylvania's first openly gay legislator, Brian Sims, stood up to speak about the SCOTUS ruling on DoMA — and was silenced by opponents through parliamentary procedures. Why?
'One of those lawmakers, conservative state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-Butler), told WHYY that he believed Sims' comments would be a violation of "God's law."
"I did not believe that as a member of that body that I should allow someone to make comments such as he was preparing to make that ultimately were just open rebellion against what the word of God has said, what God has said, and just open rebellion against God's law," Metcalfe said.
Yes, decide someone is speaking in "open rebellion" against "God" and you are morally justified in shutting them up. Crikey.
It did give Sims a chance to make an even better riposte, though: 'A few months ago I reminded this House that we put our hands on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution, not the other way around.' Those words, apparently, are not being heeded by some of his colleagues.
(And, in answer to +Zachary Cook's question below, folks like Metcalfe get a say for the same reason that folks like Sims should — because everyone should get a say, even the "authoritarian, delusional creeps." Because shutting one person down creates a precedent to shut anyone else down.)
Parliamentary gameplaying is not censorship. It's frustrating (when on the receiving end), and perhaps even rude (or perhaps not), but it's not censorship.
And a state legislator refusing to let you speak out of turn at a committee hearing has nothing to do with Benghazi. Or, for that matter, with the First Amendment.
'[LePage] was most animated when talking about the May 19 Appropriations Committee meeting. Toward the end of that meeting, LePage had requested the opportunity to address lawmakers but Senate Chair Dawn Hill, D-Cape Neddick, declined his request, prompting the governor to walk out.
On Wednesday, LePage said Democrats’ recent censoring of him is similar to the national narratives involving the Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups, the September 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi and the U.S. Justice Department’s seizure of Associated Press emails.
Asked why the issue is so important, the governor replied, "It’s freedom of speech. You folks should understand that better than I. It is the First Amendment, then there is the Second and I love ‘em both." He later added, "The minute we start stifling our speech, we might as well go home, roll up our sleeves and get our guns out."
Yes, political tiffs at the Statehouse are just the right time to call for armed rebellion. Dolt.
On the one hand, I tend to be a major First Amendment supporter. Restricting the freedom to express one's opinion in public space is per se bad for society and dire slippery slope.
On the other hand, this was going on at my local Episcopal cathedral, on Palm Sunday (which usually starts outside the church to reflect the procession into Jerusalem, and thus is subject to outside disruption).
On the first hand, as is suggested here, restricting the freedom of speech because it might upset people is, generally speaking, a stupid reason to restrict it. In theory, meaningful political speech is going to upset people.
On the second hand, the people being upset (it is claimed) are children, for whom we often make special accommodation / restriction.
On the first hand again, there's a tremendous slippery slope in public speech if we allow "think of the children" to restrict what can be said.
On the second hand, I'm not particularly sympathetic to the speaker's political opinion.
On the first hand, I'm aware enough to realize that's a piss-poor reason to restrict speech.
So … I dunno. My sense is that this behavior by the protester was rude, but not unlawful, socially counter-productive, but not something that should be legally restricted. But …
And sometimes the givers are willing to pull on those strings awfully hard.
'Must the coal industry donate to a university system that features a rather mild piece of abstract art that wounds its tender fee-fees? No. It's free to withhold, and threaten to withhold, its donations for whatever damnfool reason it wants. But citizens should judge the industry and its executives (not to mention their legislative lapdogs) based on their actions, and act — and vote — accordingly. Next time the industry attempts to burnish its image with a donation, citizens and the media should ask: what strings come attached to this gift? Does the industry believe that the gift entitles them to ideological compliance from the recipient, and will their backers in the legislature reward that expectation?'
So far we’ve had Civil Service reform (weakening) in Amendment S, and Marijuana Legalization in Amendment 64. Tonight, the last statewide initiative on the ballot: Amendment 65, the (kinda-sorta) Campaign Finance Reform initiative.
So here’s the problem:
A lot of people agree that excess money from individuals and organizations distorts the political process, giving undue influence on the electorate, and undue influence on beholden office-seekers. Even where corruption doesn’t actually occur, the very appearance of corruption is corrosive to the process.
The Supreme Court says that money = speech, and that corporations = people, so any sort of limits on campaign financing in statutory law are limited and (if challenged) dubious at best.
Amendment 65 tackles this problem. Sort of. It doesn’t actually do anything, but it’s meant to send a “message”:
It instructs the Colorado congressional delegation to propose and support a US constitutional amendment that would allow the feds and states to limit campaign contributions and spending.
It instructs the state legislature to pass any US constitutional amendment that gets proposed to that end.
Which is all very nice, but even a state constitutional amendment cannot actually compel an elected representative (federal or state) to vote a certain way. So this Amendment is largely a feel-good “sense of the people” kind of thing — a political statement by the populace to future state and federal representatives.
On the one hand, that seems fairly useless (the arguments against suggest that the effort would be better placed electing congressional representatives that support this proposal). On the other hand, it is a statement of the will of the people, to be flouted (should the opportunity arise) at some peril. On the gripping hand, yes, is this really something we need to be embedding in the state constitution — a non-binding “will of the people” of those who went to the polls in 2012?
(I’m not going to argue the merits of campaign finance and spending reform. I tend to believe in its need and disbelieve that any sort of system will ever be effective in restricting it save for a completely publicly funded campaign setup, which will introduce its own distortions and challenges.)
My net-net recommendation is in support of Amendment 65, to vote “Yes” on it. I’m not altogether happy with either what it will actually do, nor with cluttering up the state constitution with such things (really, if there’s a candidate for a legislative proposition, rather than constitutional one, this is it).
But I think the basic principle of trying to stem the tide of millionaires, billionaires, and shadowy consortia thereof flooding the airwaves and mailboxes with whatever lying crap they want to (on any particular side of any particular race) and having that be the most prominent emblem of “free speech” in our land seems a worthy philosophical effort. I will vote “Yes” on Amendment 65.
I will go toe to toe with anybody in my loathing of the Fred Phelps clan and the Westboro Baptist Church. And from an emotional standpoint, I sympathized deeply with anyone whose graveside grief has been disturbed by their repulsive protests.
But that sympathy doesn't, IMO, warrant creating yet another exception to First Amendment rights, or ruling that such an exception "serves a significant government interest". I have to side with the ACLU on this one.
AVENGERS DIRECTOR, REASSEMBLE! – Joss Whedon to return as the writer/director for Avengers 2. Huzzah! (And, not incidentally, to develop at least one Marvel-based TV property … Alias / Jessica Jones, perhaps?)
Whedon’s vision of “Avengers 2” – Sounds good to me. Though I’m sure there will still be plenty of things blowing up real good.
Bad Bar Graph! Bad! No Pie for you! – And, not surprisingly, Fox News practices bad graphic design to, coincidentally, make a (false) point.
Money talks – An amazing proportion of SuperPAC money is flowing into our political campaigns from a tiny handful of individuals. They certainly think it’s a good investment …
My Google+ –> Blog stuff is still not working, dagnabbit. So here are some of the things I’ve been talking about that you haven’t seen live (not unlike NBC’s Olympics coverage).
I’ve been lax in doing this — sorry. It did give me a chance to do some thematic grouping, though.
Being ticked off at Chick-fil-A – I’ve been a dozen different threats on Google Plus discussing the whole Chick-fil-A thing. This post sort of summarized my opinions on the matter: it’s one thing to levy social punishment on CfA for their activities, but it’s another thing for the government to do so.
This is why I belong to the ACLU – Because they’re less about ideology than civil liberties. Which, I guess, is an ideoogy, but it’s one that cuts across all others.
Printing your own weaponry – That’s probably not a good thing, though the broader considerations of what you can do with that technology is fascinating.
Justice isn’t always served – Assuming that the person convicted in a crime is the person truly guilty might work as a generality, but always beware of thinking it’s a certainty in each particular case. Because the justice system is sometimes, sadly, more interested in winning than in justice.
So let’s be clear — this particular article came up in Newsmax, which is one of the zanier right-wing “news” sites out there. It’s sort of like WorldNetDaily, only less pervasively religious.
Wow! Sounds … dire. Let’s have a chat, then, with Senator Mitch McConnell, the senior senator from Kentucky and Senate Minority Leader for the GOP.
* * *
Sen. Mitch McConnell, Dolt (R-KY)
Dear Mitch (can I call you Mitch?):
Sounds like you’re worried about something. Some great, existential threat to our nation. Some vast, horrifying conspiracy that threatens the very foundations of our way of life, our liberties, our deep-seated national beliefs.
What could it be?
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell charged in an exclusive interview with Newsmax Thursday that President Obama poses the greatest threat to the First Amendment in “modern times” …
Yikes! Whatever could you mean? Are you privy to some secret administration plan? Are you concerned about the growing national security state, warrantless wiretaps, NSA scanning email, or drones watching our every move? Tell us more!
… and branded his administration “astonishingly left wing.”
Mitch, the only astonishing thing is that someone could consider Obama’s centrist-to-a-fault stance on most issues “left wing.” The real “left wing” sure isn’t very happy with him.
McConnell also accused President Obama’s re-election campaign of engaging in tactics eerily “reminiscent” of the Nixon administration’s so-called “enemies list” during the 1970s.
Wow. That’s two associations between Obama and Nixon in as many days. You with this, and Rush Limbaugh calling Obama’s new immigration policy “worse than anything Nixon did in Watergate.” Is that the new GOP campaign meme: Obama = Nixon? That’s … very odd, Mitch.
McConnell was flabbergasted …
Really, Mitch? Flabbergasted?
… by remarks made by David Axelrod, the president’s senior campaign adviser, who told an audience in New York on Wednesday that Obama would “use whatever tools out there, including a constitutional amendment” to turn back the Supreme Court ruling that opened the way for super PACs to play a prominent role in elections.
Gosh, I’m not quite sure what’s “flabbergasting” about that, Mitch. I mean, people have been talking about ways to reverse Citizens United since the ruling came down, up to and including any number of Quixotic constitutional amendment proposals to state that corporations aren’t people (no matter what, my friend, Mitt Romney says).
Certainly it isn’t that a president is talking about a constitutional amendment to deal with a SCOTUS ruling he doesn’t care for that has you so “flabbergasted,” Mitch. I mean, how many GOP presidents have given lip service to a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade? Or to outlaw flag burning? Or any number of other outrageous things the Supreme Court has ruled over the years?
What in particular about this flabbergasts you, Mitch?
“This has never been done before — in 235 years — to make it possible for the government to control political speech in this country — a truly radical, astonishing thing to say out loud even if you believed it,” said the top Republican in the Senate, who participated in a legal challenge that helped make super PACs possible.
We’ll leave aside the Alien & Sedition Acts, Mitch. Oh, and other actions in which the government has restricted political speech (from imprisoning labor and war protesters, especially during time of war, to preventing protesters from getting near official events). We’ll leave those aside, because I think we’re getting at the heart of your flabbergastment — the idea that opposing the Citizens United ruling means you want to have the government “control political speech in this country.”
“America was built on free speech — the most important part of the Bill of Rights — …
More important than Freedom of Religion, Mitch? More important than the Right to Bear Arms? More important than the Tenth Amendment? Careful — I suspect some of your followers would disagree.
… and so we need to defend speech we don’t like. And we certainly want to fight against those who are trying to shut us up,” McConnell insisted.
Wait … what? Who’s being “shut up” because we “don’t like” certain speech?
“America has many problems, but too much speech is not one of them — too vigorous speech is not one of them. And we don’t need the government — which is trying to control almost every aspect of our lives now — also telling us what we can and cannot say.”
What does a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and allow restrictions on now-unlimited campaign spending have to do with “telling us what we can and cannot say?” Is “too vigorous speech” a code for “too expensive speech”?
I find your lack of faith ... disturbing ...
The longest serving U.S. senator in Kentucky’s history has been dubbed the “Darth Vader of campaign finance reform” for his sometimes unpopular stand on campaign finance. It’s an image that he relishes …
Yes, of course, Mitch. Darth Vader is just the image you want to associate with the Senate GOP leadership. Well played!
Especially since Darth was such a big believer in free speech — except when someone’s lack of faith disturbed him. But, heck, you can’t trust folks who lack faith!
… based on a belief that all voices need to be heard in the political arena.
I was not aware that before Citizens United there were voices that were not being heard in the political arena. There were voices not being heard as loudly as they could turn up the volume to corporately speak, but that’s a very, very different thing. Isn’t it, Mitch?
McConnell is expected to reiterate his stand in a planned speech on Friday at the American Enterprise Institute.
Of course. Because the AEI is all about the “little guy” having a powerful voice heard in the political arena.
He accused the Obama administration of using government agencies like the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Internal Revenue Service to “embarrass” and “silence” its critics.
“In other words, they’re using the power of the government to try to shut people up. It’s reminiscent of the Nixon administration,” said McConnell,…
Wow. Those are pretty harsh accusations, Mitch. Any specifics you care to associate with them? Anything you can actually point to the FEC, the FCC, the SEC, and/or the IRS doing to “embarass” and “silence” its critics? Sure you don’t want to throw in the National Weather Service, the Marine Corps Band, and Smokey the Bear while you’re at it?
… who couldn’t recall any other administration that had floated the idea of a constitutional amendment as in the case of Axelrod.
“Certainly in modern times,” he asserted. “I can’t recall anybody before just coming right out and saying we need to amend the First Amendment. Now they may have wanted to get around it in some way, but these people are just saying forthrightly ‘we’re going to change the Constitution.’ The most important amendment to the Constitution is the First Amendment. And free speech is right at the beginning.”
Despite the passing similarities, this is not a person.
In modern times I can’t recall any court coming out and saying that corporations were so worthy and person-like as to enjoy full and unfettered free speech protection, up to and including spending however many gazillions they choose to spend on elections.
What next? Will corporations be allowed to practice their own religion? Will they be able to keep and bear arms? When do corporations get to vote, and how many votes will they get (to cast, as opposed to buy)?
I am a profoundly deep believer in the First Amendment of the Constitution. I would be very leery of anything that directly affected its words. But I’m a believer in voting rights, too, and I don’t think that the amendments that “changed” those rights — giving women the franchise, for example — were some sort horrible weakening or perversion of the Constitution.
Despite widespread criticism of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision — based largely on a presumption that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in corporate entities or labor unions to speak collectively —
I don’t recall anyone ever saying that the CEO of ExxonMobil was not allowed to speak his mind under the First Amendment. I don’t recall any evil governmental conspiracy to gag the board members of J. P. Morgan. They all were allowed to speak, to op-ed … and to vote their conscience.
That doesn’t mean that ExxonMobil or J. P. Morgan (or the Teamsters or the AFL-CIO) should have the same right to “speak” (spend money) that their constituent individuals have, any more than they are allowed to (actually) vote.
… McConnell insisted that he is “absolutely” pleased with the role that super PACs are playing in the 2012 presidential contest.
Given that the biggest corporate and billionaire-funded SuperPACs support the GOP, that’s hardly surprising.
“I think it is really, really important now that it’s possible for all points of view in the marketplace of ideas to be expressed,” said McConnell, …
Which points of view were not being expressed in the marketplace of ideas before Citizens United, Mitch?
And when a gaggle of corporations are able to buy up all the aisles in the market, how free is the marketplace then?
… who was first elected to the Senate in 1984.
That seems vaguely fitting, as considering a corporate voice to be the same as an individual one, and defending that in the name of liberty, is more than vaguely Orwellian.
“The left for many years has tried to sort of micromanage speech — say that ‘you get to speak because you’re on my side. But you don’t get to speak because you’re against what I’m doing.’”
Really? Really, Mitch? Point out to me where the “left” tried to restrict people who were not on “their side” from being able to speak. Really, Mitch — I want to know.
(Need I point out that one of the architects of the campaign spending limitations that Citizens United overturned, Mitch, was one of your colleagues, Sen. John McCain — someone whom even you, Mitch, would have problems describing as “the left.”)
The senator said he is “proud of the decision in Citizens United” and added that “I hope I played a role by filing an Amicus brief in that case.”
The only thing more appalling than the decision, Mitch, is the idea that any of the Justices were actually swayed by your arguments.
A senior member of the Appropriations, Agriculture and Rules Committees of the upper chamber, McConnell also hoped that Senate Democrats would not succeed in passing a so-called Disclose Act, which would require corporations, unions and nonprofit groups to disclose their top donors if they participate in political activity, and to agree to other disclosures related to expenditures prior to elections.
He said such a law would be another way of undermining the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.
“What the left is saying — okay the Supreme Court won’t allow us to prevent them from speaking, but why don’t we try to make sure everybody knows who’s contributing to those groups — and then we’ll harass them, and intimidate them, and try to quiet them, shut them up, sort of like a Nixonian enemies’ list. And some of it has already happened.”
If money talks, shouldn't we know who it's talking for?
See, funny thing, Mitch — when the Supreme Court majority in Citizens United were explaining their reasoning, they dismissed concerns that the gargantuan flood of corporate money into the election process would lead to corruption and damage to our democratic institutions. Why? Because Congress would be able to mandate transparency in donations, so that if ExxonMobil spend a million dollars getting someone elected, for example, at least people would know it and be able to act (and vote) as they then saw fit.
Clearly the Supreme Court was cleverly conspiring to undermine its own decision, eh, Mitch?
McConnell accused President Obama of helping to “go after an individual who contributed to one of the groups supporting Gov. Romney.”
Similar efforts are being waged through various government agencies, he said.
“So their idea here is ‘well if we can’t shut them up, then let’s embarrass them off the playing field. Let’s intimidate them. Let’s scare them. Let’s bring the force of government down on them and intimidate them so that they’re afraid to take us on.’ This is not appropriate behavior in America. And this needs to be stood up to.”
Really, Mitch? Because if there is official government harassment of opponents to the administration, I’d like to hear about it and have the opportunity to condemn it. Of course, it’s hard to believe the only way Goldman-Sachs can avoid being intimidated by the government is by secret donations, isn’t it, Mitch?
I’m going to leave off the rest of your screedy interview with NewsMax, Mitch, because while it’s equally doltish (even though job growth has been pretty steadily increasing in the private sector, you think the private sector is losing jobs; even though public sector jobs have plummeted because of local and state governments starving for funds, you think public sector employment is doing fine), it misses the point.
Opposing Citizens United is not opposing personal liberty and free speech. It’s opposing the idea that those who can afford the biggest microphones — especially major corporations showing record profits — are either deserving of the same free speech rights as actual flesh-and-blood citizens, or should be allowed to leverage their vast wealth in an “equal” way with the average citizen-on-the-street.
Proposing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and corporate personhood may or may not be a good idea, but it’s not an attack on your right, Mitch, or mine, to speak our minds in public.
And calling efforts to deal with the Citizens United decision a Nixonian dirty trick that constitutes the worst attack on the First Amendment in modern times is, at best, simply simply confusion, and at worst, deceitful demagoguery toward the American people. The real people, Mitch.
Having been a Listserv list moderator for some very contentious years (and a forum admin during some other contentious ones), I seriously understand the basic problems of dealing with the banning stick or how/when to moderate content (and how easily that spirals out of control). I can't imagine how to deal with it on a Google / Facebook / Twitter / Tumblr scale, except that EFF's quoted lesson below becomes more important the bigger a site becomes.
On the web, as in life, error correction is underrated but oh-so-important. #ddtb
Most sites that host third party content, sooner or later have to grapple with the problem of content moderation. How hard is it to put together and implement a fair and effective content moderation policy? Here are some lessons from Facebook and Tumblr.
"The simple fact is that there will be mistakes and misuses of any content review system, even if the companies invest in more training. As a result, it is not enough for companies to simply implement takedown rules—they must develop a robust, easy-to-use avenue for error correction, misuse detection, and appeal."
