English language and a pinch of French.
There’s been a crack pandemic in Paris, France, these last years, with an area now known as Crack Hill (la colline du crack) in the North-Eastern parts of the city. Neighbors talking of “hell,” “nightmare” and other such words has become commonplace. Authorities are pouring millions of taxpayer money in a so-called crack plan doing nothing but distributing under police surveillance new crack pipes every Thursday to the 1.500 crackheads (they know the numbers!) roaming on Crack Hill, and paying for 400 hotel rooms for crackheads.
Thus the bureaucracy’s sole policy is to prevent the crackheads’ habit from turning them into blood felons, with the result that they will remain an endless source of unpunished misdemeanors, an everlasting nightmare for the neighborhood. – This in a country where the numbers of police officers per inhabitant are extremely high.
« Le Gilet jaune Jérôme Rodrigues relaxé » (Le Parisien 7/3/21) : une bonne nouvelle, bien que je ne comprenne pas le jugement. Rodrigues avait traité de « bande de nazis » des membres d’un syndicat policier et le ministre de l’intérieur avait saisi la justice pour injures. Le juge dit que les propos « visaient non l’ensemble des policiers mais les méthodes de certains d’entre eux » et que le syndicat « ne se confond pas avec l’administration publique qu’est la police nationale ». Oui et alors ? Rodrigues était poursuivi pour injures et non pour diffamation envers un corps constitué (la police nationale), donc le fait que les propos ne visaient pas le corps mais certains membres de ce corps ne disculpe pas en soi de l’injure.
La question est de savoir si traiter les gens de « nazis » est une injure. Or comment cela ne serait-il pas une injure alors que la loi française condamne pénalement l’idéologie nazie et que donc un nazi est un hors-la-loi ; si traiter quelqu’un de voleur est une injure, traiter quelqu’un de nazi est forcément une injure, qui doit être condamnée en tant que telle. Il est donc évident que le ministère public ou le ministre auteur de la plainte va faire appel et a bien des chances de gagner, suite à un jugement sans queue ni tête (du moins tel que rapporté par le journal). Le calvaire de Jérôme Rodrigues est loin d’être fini. « Allez en dictature »…
The ‘shield’ for ‘extremist’ views is the First Amendment
The Wikipedia page ‘Gab’ (the internet platform) says: “Gab claims that it promotes free speech and individual liberty, though these statements have been criticized as being a shield for its alt-right and extremist ecosystem.”
Under American law an “alt-right ecosystem” has no need of a shield, its shield is the law (First Amendment), so the critics alluded to are irrelevant unless the problem is the very shield American law offers alt-right ideas, that is, the problem is free speech.
The construction “Gab claims… though” is objectionable, there can be no “though” here, free speech is indeed what it is all about. When one creates a business for money laundering, as money laundering is illegal, then the business is a “shield.” Therefore, as alt-right views are shielded by the First Amendment, describing Gab as a “shield” is libelous.
It strikes one as odd, given the First Amendment law, that still some Americans, like the author(s) of this Wikipedia page, seem rather to have been raised in a European legal environment where freedom of speech exists only for what the powers that be allow, and everything they label extremist is doomed to endless persecution.
Finnish minister says sexist online comments about female politicians is a “threat to democracy.”
The utterance is even more ominous when one thinks that under Finnish democratic law derogatory comments on public figures such as elected officials might be prosecutable and severely punished. I’m not saying this is the case, as I don’t know Finnish law, but that wouldn’t surprise me given the state of the law in my and other continental European countries.
Pro-liberty Skidmore students blocked from creating a club after “cancel mob” organized against them.
Before cancel culture there’s the heckler’s veto, a cancel mob is a heckling mob. I don’t know how a “Student Government Association,” which blocked the club’s creation under pressure of a heckling mob, relates to government, if at all, in free speech law (any form of government support would suffice) but the doctrine about heckling is: “the core concern … is that allowing the suppression of speech because of the discontent of the opponents provides the perverse incentive for opponents to threaten violence rather than to meet ideas with more speech.” (mtsu.edu) Link
Instagram deletes post of President Biden falling up the stairs under its “violence and incitement” policy.
MSNBC analyst says Biden falling meme could incite violence.
They expect him to fall a lot…
Joe Biden has been would-be candidate for POTUS for 35 YEARS.
Here’s what Robert H. Bork wrote for year 1987: “Senator Biden’s presidential aspirations came to a sudden end, probably for all time. The campaign staff of Governor Michael Dukakis gave the press videotapes demonstrating that Biden had plagiarized speeches by other politicians such as Britain’s Neal Kinnock. In addition, the press learned that Biden had misrepresented his law school record. As the damaging facts began to pile up, Biden at first tried to explain and finally had to hold a press conference at which he withdrew as a candidate for his party’s nomination.” (The Tempting of America, 1990)
For a discussion of Robert Bork’s ideas, see Lesson 8.
‘It started with words’ so free speech is not okay?
Biden appointee Timothy Wu once questioned whether the First Amendment was “obsolete,” has questionable free speech views.
A fair statement is that all elected officials and their appointees have questionable free speech views, because a political class will always want to mutate into a political cartel, which requires speech control and suppression, so the condition for free speech is a truly independent judicial power and irremovable judges, something that apparently does not exist in this world except in the USA (God bless America). Do not make as if Republican majorities had no questionable free speech views: the many anti-BDS laws, which will be struck down one after the other, and the sooner the better, are a recent example of the tendency.
Force is the one thing we’re not allowed to advocate.
The First Amendment allows one to advocate force. “Advocacy of illegal conduct” is protected speech, what is not protected is “incitement to imminent lawless action” (Brandenburg v. Ohio), the word to emphasize here being “imminent.” Case law explains that, for speech to be unprotected, the lawless action it advocates must be not only imminent but also likely to follow from speech. I would argue that there is an intrinsic impossibility for online speech to be incitement to imminent action, the law is aimed at speech “brigaded with action,” that is, speech to and from among a mob prone to act, or, in the classic example, shouting fire in a crowded theater.
It’s legal, but it will still get you banned.
Being legal it depends on the carriers’ policies whether speech is suppressed and so far they have had quite discretionary powers.
Given what I just said about online speech I am surprised that a former shareowner of a platform, namely Parler, is raising funds for his legal counsel in view of a Congress hearing about the platform’s responsibility for the Capitol storming. It looks like rogue intimidation. I question the legality of any step by the legislator that compels private citizens to legal counsel expenses. The judiciary, not the legislative, is the power that examines particular responsibilities.
Is there rationality in the affirmation that as blacks make a disproportionate part of prison inmates in America the American society is racist? Looking at the figures of wealth beside the figures of prison inmates, one finds consistence across the two sets, that is, the less wealthy group is also the group with disproportionate numbers of prison inmates, which makes perfect sense on the merely economic and sociological level as poverty is ridden with deprivation and incentives to illegal conduct. As it is to be sociologically expected that crime be more rampant in poor neighborhoods than in wealthy ones, it is also to be expected that blacks have more prison inmates, as the figures show they are poorer in the main.
Therefore, although the affirmation according to which the society is racist can be inferred from prison inmates figures is hardly challenged because of the fear the challenge could be construed as a claim that blacks are intrinsically (like genetically) more criminal as a race, in fact there exists an entirely economic cause for penal figures.
This shifts attention to the cause of economic inequalities, as one might then ask if there is something intrinsic to racial groups that some thrive more and some thrive less in the economy? If inequalities in prison figures can be inferred from wealth group status, the latter cannot be inferred away, so to speak.
The anti-racist idea is that, given equal opportunities, all racial groups must and would equally thrive in the economy. So, as there are economic differences between racial groups, it must be that the society does not give equal opportunities to all and this because it is racist. Thus the American society is to be called racist as long as each racial group does not have the same proportions of wealth and poverty as the global average, that is, as long as they are not all the same in terms of wealth.
That this can and will result from the free market is, I am sure, what no one among Americans believes, so the fact that Americans keep talking of their economy as a free-market economy, having at the same time an anti-racist agenda, is questionable.
As you know, ex-post-facto legislation is expressly prohibited by the US constitution.
(On the eve of the sesquicentennial of Ohio’s Statehood in 1953 it was discovered that while the Ohio constitution had been ratified, the territory of Ohio was never formally admitted to the union. President Eisenhower made a joke about Ohio state officials drawing salaries under false pretenses and then had congress RETROACTIVELY ratify Ohio’s statehood.)
In its purity the principle holds in criminal law only, but such a construction may be argued to be unconstitutional indeed:
“Thomas Jefferson described them [ex post facto laws] as ‘equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases.’ Over the years, however, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters, and established four categories of unconstitutional ex post facto laws.” (Wikipedia)
Like Jefferson I see no reason why the principle should be limited to criminal law, because even if ignoring the principle must be particularly dramatic in criminal law it doesn’t mean such neglect is benign in other legal domains.
Multipartyism is a corrupt form of people’s government
Multipartyism is a corrupt form of people’s government. The point is to bring not more than two platforms to the electorate’s choice because that’s the only way to ensure that the elected majority will apply the electoral platform rather than coalition pacts bargained behind closed doors between various elected parties. The platform itself is the result of primaries so what Perot and others do as third parties could well be done in the frame of one or the other party.
In multipartyism parties run for platforms they know they will amend behind closed doors the very day after election day!
That is, if no party gets absolute majority (50 percent or more of the votes, that is, of the seats). With two parties competing one will get absolute majority, but with more than two parties competing absolute majorities are exceptional and coalition pacts must be reached between parties to form majority governments. Where absolute majorities are not exceptional one may talk of a de facto bipartisan system.
La différence entre un Français et un Américain, c’est que l’un chante « Aux armes » et que l’autre a le droit de porter des armes. « Vous chantiez, j’en suis fort aise… »
On Legalizing Polygamy
Polygamy is as good as nonexistent in the Arab Gulf states:
“Today, because of higher standards of education and additional leisure time to spend, compatible spouses are more desired. This issue also contributed to the almost complete eradication of polygamy in Gulf. Although permitted under Islam, the custom even in the past was rarely practiced. Often women include specific paragraphs in their marriage contract prohibiting the husband from taking a second wife.” (Article Marriage, in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab States Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Arab States, Maisel & Shoup ed., 2009)
The phrasing is ambiguous. “Eradication” would not make one expect the following sentence: “the custom even in the past was rarely practiced.” Because if it was rarely practiced in the past, then it was already “eradicated,” in the sense that it was rare already, and the conclusion is that the custom is as uncommon today as it was in the past, so there has been no change, and certainly no eradication. The situation was and is that only the wealthiest men, typically of the ruling families, had and have multiple wives. Besides, this “monopoly” must by necessity be consolidated by the rent economy, as one fails to see how individual males depending on the state for their income would be allowed several wives without the state correspondingly increasing their income, which would be perceived as unwarranted by the rest of males, whereas coming from the free market this kind of perception does not obtain.
So one point for allowing polygamy would be that it’d remain uncommon anyway, as it was and is in the Gulf states.
In an online summary of Edward Dutton’s book Why Islam Makes You Stupid… But Also Means You’ll Conquer the World (2020), I find Dutton includes among the reasons why Islam makes one stupid… and likely to conquer the world… polygamy. But on this he’s wanting on the side of sociological data, as polygamy is hardly more practiced by Muslims than by others.
I have already written on the issue on this blog (here), warning against assuming that the legality of polygamy translates into high degrees of polygyny, as the figures in fact show that polygyny is high in sub-Saharan countries (not all Muslim) and the Caribbeans (where polygamy is illegal).
Back to Dutton: How can Muslim polygamy, i.e., the legal acceptance/tolerance of it can be a factor of stupidity if it does not translate into major differences with countries where it is prohibited? That’s the same as saying that I would become dumber by tolerating my neighbor’s using intoxicants, without using them myself, as the dumbing effect (if there’s any) of intoxicants is limited to the user and does not extend to the one who tolerates it.
Therefore, when in the recent French bill against ‘separatism,’ commentators and, in the travaux préparatoires and debates, the legislators themselves conflate Islam with issues that are in fact connected with the culture of sub-Saharan migrants, be them from Muslim communities or not, namely polygamy and female genital cutting (same as with polygamy female circumcision predates Islam and has been maintained in whole communities, Islamic or not).
Of course it does not make sense to speak of an Islamic “tolerance” for polygamy, as the Prophet of Islam had several wives. Another word must be used to convey the idea that it is a good thing that some men at least have multiple wives even though almost all of them will have only one, as it probably turned out to be the case throughout the history of Islam in its main centers.
Polygyny can take many forms. No one really has to relinquish it in a state where polygamy is not allowed and only the legal institution of it does not exist; a polygynous man can adapt to any legal system, find arrangements within the law, for instance as to heirloom etc, and I fail to see what obstacles there are to de facto polygyny in the West. The French legislator thinks he has adopted measures just now (the bill I have been briefly discussing in ii) to prevent de facto polygyny in France but this will only serve to make the bureaucracy still more intolerably intrusive in all people’s lives. They can never think out of that box, it’s always more bureaucratic control, like readers of Tocqueville know.
The classic work of sociological literature, The Children of Sanchez, may be described as a case depiction of polygyny in Mexico. Sanchez, a restaurant waiter (I wouldn’t call that high status, although evolutionary psychology, EP, tends to associate polygyny with status), had several wives and children in various barrios of Mexico City, sharing his earnings between all of them, and all of them living in misery. – Polygyny is not legal in Mexico. Would Mexican authorities make it legal, they would adjust the legal system to the reality of their country. A migrant to Mexico from a country where polygyny is legal, would still think polygyny is permissible there, albeit not legal. By practising it, he would conform to a Mexican reality and couldn’t be accused to be a cause of disruption.
(In the U.S., what would be disruptive is the same migrant’s will to live in a nucleus family of single wife and children, as the de facto model is communal child-rearing under Amazons’ control. Wait and see.)
An alternative to consociationalism may be the American constitutional theory as exposed by Supreme Court judges:
“We are not an assimilative, homogeneous society, but a facilitative, pluralistic one, in which we must be willing to abide someone else’s unfamiliar or even repellant practice because the same tolerant impulse protects our own idiosyncracies. … In a community such as ours, ‘liberty’ must include the freedom not to conform. ” Justice Brennan, on Michael H. v. Gerald D. 1989
That may make America sound pretty much liberal but I still perceive it is more conservative than continental Europe (it is no accident, by the way, that of all European countries the UK left the EU), where they have got authoritarian liberalism whereas in the States it remains PC liberalism.
Kierkegaard Against ‘Christendom’
Isn’t it astonishing that one would need a “school of intelligence,” Epicureanism, to “contend” that we ought to look for pleasure? Is it something people need be told or rather they needn’t be told that they like and want pleasure more than displeasure? Kierkegaard is talking through me right now: He strongly objected to Christianity turning into a form of Epicureanism, with the indicting question: What is the point of making eternal bliss dependent upon what people want in this life? If the good life that leads to eternal bliss is what everybody wants without being told, namely a comfy pleasurable existence, then there was no need to warn them of eternal damnation. ‘Christendom,’ that is, Christianity as Epicureanism, is nonsense.
A call to a pleasurable life has no meaning except as opposition to the thought of an afterlife or a supernatural order of things, as ‘superstitious beliefs’ (in Epicurus’s words) can hinder one’s correct conduct on the way to a pleasurable life, leaving aside the question that the obstacles are also in the very craving for pleasure as it is more often than not self-contradictory and requires a method, a guidance which Epicurus proposed to delineate (with what success?) – Precisely because of Epicureanism’s rejection of superstition, the grounds are lacking for Christianity to be an Epicureanism, that is, to be of this world. This life is ultimately about winning the afterlife, not about making life comfy. For the latter one needs Epicureanism but for one who heeds the warning from beyond Epicureanism is miserable blindedness. One cannot reconcile both views, and this is the reason Christendom is anti-Christian. The idea that the routine observance of sacraments, received from priests, moreover, who are in nothing different from their herd except that they have a MORE pleasurable life than most of them (in terms of wealth –being high functionaries of the state in the Scandinavian Lutheran churches– and good name and family life and leisure and so on), is what a Christian life is about, is appalling when one thinks, like Kierkegaard, of it.
The clergyman in Christendom, when asked how to live the good life, might answer: “Be in my shoes.” Hinting not as much as to what is be done as a Christian, as to a collective situation where the good life is partly inherited (the bishop is the bishop’s son) and partly the result of worldly shrewdness that has nothing to do with Christian teachings and everything with an Epicurean quest for pleasure, including the pleasure to slit others’ throats (metaphorically speaking, at least, that is, as there are in the state church x or y bishop tenures then you’ll get x or y incumbents and the other candidates will be failures). Ultimately the guidance for Epicureanism is how to make this school of intelligence compatible with a state of things where people are not at each other’s throats all the time. We all know we want our pleasure and we all have some notions of how to get it (although our pleasures conflict with each other too), and yet it happens more often than not that our pleasure must depend on an object that we don’t own.
Last but not least, Epicurus wrote for a leisure class that doesn’t exist any longer. His thinking must be thus qualified that it answers the question of how to be happy with so much time on our hands, surrounded by slaves working for us, whereas in many cases we are not even able to secure the least bit of free time in our existence nowadays. So talking of Epicureanism to today’s public is like telling them “there were better days, you know.” Carpe diem, pluck the day, usually summarizes Epicureanism in a nutshell. Carpe diem makes sense if I can say the day is mine, if I am no floatsam, floating with the stream or winds of the workday from morning till night, with no direction but that of the steady flow. Floating is not what the vessel does but its wreck.
A few quotes from Kierkegaard’s Articles to The Fatherland and The Instant (from Attack Upon ‘Christendom’, translator Walter Lowrie, Princeton University Press, Tenth Printing 1991)
Articles in The Fatherland
28 the impudent fudge about Christianity being perfectible
35 in Protestantism, especially in Denmark, Christianity marches to a different melody, to the tune of «Merrily we roll along, roll along, roll along» – Christianity is enjoyment of life, tranquillized, as neither the Jew nor the pagan was, by the assurance that the thing about eternity is settled, settled precisely in order that we might find pleasure in enjoying this life, as well as any pagan or Jew.
37 I am not a Christian severity as opposed to a Christian leniency. By no means. I am neither leniency nor severity: I am… a human honesty.
38 as soon as the Christian requirement of poverty is brought to bear, family is a luxury
110 Imagine that a man with a loaded pistol stepped up to a person and said to him, «I’ll shoot you dead,» or imagine something still more terrible, that he were to say, «I’ll seize upon your person and torture you to death in the most dreadful manner, if you do not (now be on the watch, for here it comes)…make your own life here on earth as profitable and enjoyable as you possibly can.» This surely is the most comical speech; for to bring that about one really does not need to threaten with a loaded pistol and the most amazing kind of death; perhaps neither the loaded pistol nor the most agonizing kind of death would avail to prevent it. And so it is here: by the dread of eternal punishment (frightful menace!), by the hope of an eternal blessedness, to want to bring about…yes, to bring about what we are (…) that we may live as we most like to live–for to refrain from civil crimes is nothing but plain shrewdness.
165 If in the natural man there is any instinct so strong as the instinct of self-preservation, it is the instinct for the propagation of the race, which therefore Christianity tried to cool off, teaching that it is better not to marry, yet, if worse comes to worst, it is better to marry than to burn. But in «Christendom» the propagation of the race has become the serious business of life, together with Christianity; and the priest (this epitome of nonsense enveloped in long robes), the priest, the teacher of Christianity, of the Christianity of the New Testament, has even got his income fixed in proportion to his activity in promoting the propagation of the race, getting a definite amount for each child.
183 So there is a difference as wide as the earth, as wide as heaven, between the Mynsterish [Bishop Mynster’s] life-view (which properly is Epicureanism, enjoyment of life and the lust for life, belonging to this world) and the Christian view, which is that of suffering, of enthusiasm for death, belonging to the other world; yea, there is such a difference between these two life-views that the latter (if it were taken seriously, and not at the very most expressed rarely in a quiet hour) must appear to Bishop Mynster as a kind of madness.
185 By indifferentism one commonly understands having no religion at all. But resolutely and definitely to have no religion at all is something passionate, and so is not the most dangerous sort of indifferentism. Hence too it occurs rather rarely.
189 I am unable to endure this thought [«The situation is this: the more thou hast to do with God, and the more He loves thee, the more thou wilt become, humanly speaking, unhappy for this life, the more thou wilt have to suffer in this life»], and therefore merely investigate this true definition of what it is to become a Christian, whereas for my part I help myself to endure sufferings by a much easier thought, one which is Jewish, not in the highest sense Christian, the recognition that I suffer for my sins.
190 And only by the help of this canst thou see that the Christianity of the New Testament does not exist, that the little religiousness there is in the land is at the very most…Judaism.
205 [Christianity] that religion precisely which extols the single state.
215 man is reduced to insignificance by marriage
223 Christianly it is egoism in the highest degree that because a man and a woman cannot control their lust another being must therefore sigh, perhaps for seventy years, in this prisonhouse and vale of tears, and perhaps be lost eternally.
263 And inflexibly as the human race stands up for its will to punish, to punish even by death, those who are not willing to be like the others, just so firmly does eternity stick to its purpose of punishing with eternal perdition those who are tranquillized by being like the others.
281 Worldly shrewdness is eternally excluded, despised and abhorred, as things are in heaven, more than all vices and crimes, because in its nature it of all things most belongs to this wretched world, and most of all is remote from having anything to do with heaven and the eternal. [Shrewdness=Klugheit (Kant)]
“I must stay on the court in order to prevent the Bolsheviki from getting control.” Chief Justice William Howard Taft, 1929
It must have been no small peril as the Chief Justice could utter such words.
On the other hand there are those who trivialize the matter using the phrase “red scare,” blaming people such as Chief Justice Taft for irrationality.
The record of Communist parties’ participation in coalition governments in European countries (like France) remains unscrutinized. What you’ll find is their consistent voting for the curtailment of fundamental freedoms.
In June 1919 the Overman Committee of the U.S. Senate concluded that Communism in Russia was “a reign of terror unparalleled in the history of modern civilization.“
“Since 2011, the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has excluded the Chinese government and China-affiliated organisations from its activities, including using funds to host Chinese visitors at NASA facilities.” (Wkpd: China exclusion policy of NASA)
In 1943 the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943, or Magnuson Act, repealed the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, allowing for an annual quota of 105 Chinese immigrants, at the same time maintaining the ban against ownership of property and businesses by ethnic Chinese.
For those who think hate speech is unprotected, please read Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). The Supreme Court held that the WBC [Westboro Baptist Church]’s hateful picketing was protected speech. And Wikipedia correctly cites me as the source of the protection. ([a Twitter user named] The First Amendment)
“Hate speech” is a name found by those willing to shield group lobbying from people’s scrutiny. To those who’d retort that using the n-word and other such words isn’t “scrutinizing group lobbying,” I have this to say: “One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” (Justice John Marshall Harlan)
Les émissions littéraires et les écrivains qui se rendent sur ces plateaux sont à la littérature ce que la télé-réalité est à la réalité : de la « télé-littérature ».
En France nous avons eu des ministres communistes et nous avons toujours des parlementaires communistes mais demander la même liberté d’expression qu’aux États-Unis est impensable.
Invasive Moderation (Part 3)
The Corporate Frankenstein
Twitter is going wild with their flags, trying hard to suppress even the truth. Just shows how dangerous they are, purposely stifling free speech. Very dangerous for our Country. Does Congress know that this is how Communism starts? Cancel Culture at its worst. (Pres. Donald Trump, Dec 24, 2020)
Twitter’s flags are Twitter’s free speech. But sure go with “free speech is how communism starts” and see how far that gets you. (The First Amendment)
As a few tech companies today have the power to stifle the “free flow of information and ideas” that the First Amendment’s aim is to ensure, to do nothing about it is to make fun of the Amendment rather than to pay it due respect.
To compare Twitter’s policy with an individual’s speech is bogus. A company follows a predefined corporate purpose. At best its speech should be construed as “commercial speech,” with limited protection only.
(Nota Bene: As in the next tweets I speak of the political speech of corporations, it should be clear to you that the statement here is about what corporations are in essentia according to me, like the “End Corporate Personhood!” message on the placard there [Middle Tennessee State University’s First Amendment Encyclopedia: Corporate Speech].)
Commercial speech has only limited protection: “For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading.” (Central Hudson Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission ). And in the earlier state of affairs commercial speech wasn’t protected by the First Amendment at all: see Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942). – An individual’s speech isn’t subject to these conditions.
As to corporations’ so-called “political speech,” since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) it gets broad protection but the decision deals with “political speech in the form of contributions and expenditures on behalf of candidates and political issues,” not in the form of internet moderation affecting the free flow of information and ideas. Twitter Inc. has the First Amendment right to contribute financially to the campaign trail of a candidate, that’s all, there’s nothing about First Amendment protection for flagging other candidates’ tweets in the bargain.
Next time I’ll comment on Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968): “Logan dealt with right to use private property as ‘equivalent’ of public space.“
A corporation isn’t the government. The First Am. is applicable against the government or private entities acting under color of state law ONLY. And Twitter ain’t that. (Ava)
As the First Amendment cannot ensure the free flow of information and ideas against private encroachments, a statute is needed. I am arguing that that statute will be upheld against the private companies’ claim that it violates their First Amendment right.
Indeed, corporate speech has not as strong a status as citizens’ speech, all this ultimately deriving from the common law, where property is no source of absolute discretionary power.
The Supreme Court of the United States has to balance on one hand the free marketplace of ideas, which a statute will maintain, and on the other hand the rights of trustlike corporations, which a statute will regulate for the good of the commonwealth just as numerous statutes do already.
Corporate speech is twofold: commercial and political. Conceding that corporations’ political speech is equally protected (since Citizens United), that’s not the case of their commercial speech. This alone enables one to say that corporations have less First Amendment rights than individuals. => 1>.5+.2
But wait… how can you argue with… MATHEMATICS!??!?! (Allen)
Algebra is as good a form of logical thinking as another.
At least according to Bertrand Russell.
But a true algebraic formula here would be: 1>.5+x 0<x<.5 or 1>1/2+x 0<x<1/2
Given different >levels< of scrutiny by courts, one could easily translate the whole thing into algebraic formulae.
Because of Citizens United, courts will apply strict scrutiny on the bill I envision (as moderation by internet platforms such as Twitter would be deemed corporate political rather than commercial speech, and so receive full rather than limited protection). Precisely! I’m arguing that in any case the compelling interest called for by strict scrutiny exists, as it is about guaranteeing the free flow of information and ideas.
The First Amendment is a means to an end: the free flow. When people complain about private platforms not respecting the First Amendment, technically they’re wrong –correct– because they mistake the means for the end but in fact they are complaining about impediments to the flow.
Those who complain about platform moderation invoking the First Amendment mistake the means for the end but those who deny them the right to complain make the same mistake. It’s 1A for the sake of it; that is called fetish worship.
Commercial speech is speech that has a commercial purpose. Even an individual can produce commercial speech, and if so, is also subject to government regulations on commercial speech. i.e. commercial speech != [different from] speech by corporations. (Bob)
The difference is that there’s no corporation without commercial speech, without a part of it devoted to that sort of speech that was not even considered to be speech until the 1970s.
Think about it: “corporate-political-speech.” Where until Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) corporations’ commercial speech wasn’t even considered to be speech at all!
“The McConnell decision [McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)] largely rested on Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which permitted bans on corporate speech.” (From comment on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  in John R. Vile, Essential Supreme Court Decisions, 2018).
For 20 years corporate political speech was no speech at all in the United States.
“The Austin decision identified ‘an antidistortion interest’ in limiting political speech based on an attempt to prevent the effects of accumulated wealth.” That was the rationale.
Justice Stevens’s dissent on Citizens United is brilliant. Quotes (J. R. Vile 2018):
Restrictions on corporate expenditures date back to the Tillman Act of 1907. … The decision in Austin has not shown itself to be as flawed as the majority suggests.
The Court has long approved ‘the authority of legislatures to enact viewpoint-neutral regulations based on content and identity.’
The Framers had a much narrower view of the rights of corporations than the majority, and the original understanding has been substantiated by the history of regulation in this area.
The Constitution does, in fact, permit numerous ‘restrictions on the speech of some in order to prevent a few from drowning out the many.
The laws at issue are legitimate measures to prevent corruption and to protect shareholders from expenditures they do not support.
They [corporations] are not themselves members of ‘We the People’ by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.
Just like about 40 years ago commercial speech emerged as speech, 30 years later, that is ten years ago, corporate political speech became speech. For what purposes have these sinister Frankenstein creatures been invented?
The (1) of Section 230 seems intended to prevent its (2), it protects providers from liability for content on their platforms, so providers have no reason to remove content –if they’re for free speech– as nothing can happen to them for content, 230(1) speaking.
I grant you immunity for any sort of content (1) and, whereas you should be content with that, I also grant you immunity for (bona fide) content removal (2). It’s called to have your cake and eat it too. Completely unbalanced. As they’re free to remove content, why can’t I hold them responsible for content they don’t remove?
You’re perfectly free to sue the person posting the offending tweet. (J_Rex)
Wouldn’t suing an anonymous user depend on Twitter’s will to disclose information about the user?
If you don’t like Twitter’s or Facebook’s rules you are perfectly free to create your own platform with whatever idiosyncratic rules you want. In fact, there are such platforms, notably Parler. (J_Rex)
I’m free to leave but at a cost (among other things in terms of audience) and Twitter, which, as one of the first movers, has an undue trustlike position on the market due to its millions of users, should partake in the cost. If such laissez-faire views were accepted, Twitter could staff its moderation office with lunatics and that would be just as good. It can and perhaps it does.
Advocacy of Illegal Conduct Is Lawful
In a previous lesson I told Diane, who had said “no speech is protected if it incites violence,” that she was wrong. She was wrong, but even competent persons make the same error: “These cases illustrate that the First Amendment applies to all groups so long as their intent is not to intimidate or incite violence.” (First Amendment Encyclopedia: American Nazi Party and Related Groups x)
When such conclusion isn’t from lack of knowledge, it’s lack of logical thinking. “Incite violence” isn’t the same as “incite imminent lawless action” (including violence) and therefore it is lawful to incite non-imminent violence.
“In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that an economic boycott constitutes a form of constitutionally protected expression akin to traditional means of communication, such as speaking and writing, even if violence is threatened as a means of achieving group goals.” (First Amendment Encyclopedia : Boycotts)
I think the courts have held (properly) that there is a tight rope to be walked between allowing someone who is simply pissed off to vent their anger and someone who is actually intending harm. (Diane)
I’m sorry to disagree again. People who “threaten violence,” like in the Clairborne decision, “actually intend harm” (at least conditionally: if… then) and yet it is protected speech.
But Diane is probably thinking of the “true threat” doctrine. So I add that except for the unusual 2003 decision on cross burning that can be a true threat, generally speaking in case law a threat has to be kind of very clear, present, imminent, lawless and all to be (a bit) “true.”
If the courts want to be consistent with Virginia v. Black (2003) on cross burning and the vague notion of intimidation, they will have to smash down the very doctrine of true threat, even Brandenburg v. Ohio (on lawless imminent action) and the whole edifice of First Amendment law. The Supreme Court made a mistake.
The true meaning of the American First Amendement, its truly distinctive nature lie in the words “Advocacy of illegal conduct.” This distinctly American right is what makes all other peoples beside conscious Americans look like phantoms or trembling mice keeping close to the wall.
In Cleveland v. United States (1946), “Justice Francis W. Murphy dissented, largely based on anthropological analysis, arguing that polygamy differed from promiscuity.” #Mormon
Porn often promotes “plots” based on racism, incest, rape, sexism, or violence, and then says these themes are okay in porn because they’re “fantasy.” Why are we sexualizing scenarios that are never acceptable in reality? (FTND: Fight the New Drug)
On a First Amendment Encyclopedia I read of criticism of porn films… in the sense of literary criticism. So, as you talk of “plots,” that alone could be construed as “redeeming value” (which protects some explicit material from prosecution for obscenity). As there’s a plot, that’s a work of the mind, a work of art.
But let me ask, then. What if someone cuts up the sex scenes from the film and uploads them piecemeal? The public will inevitably miss the dialogues, the acting, the story, the plot, all the redeeming value, they will only be… watching porn.
On a marketplace there must be antitrust laws. What are the antitrust laws on the “marketplace of ideas”?
The marketplace of ideas is about speech and counterspeech but some are defining it as speech and speech-canceling.