Censorship Confirmed

Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but acting under orders from the government to suppress free speech, with no judicial review, is

Elon Musk

The Twitter Files have been posted, at least in part, and it shows collusion between Twitter and the Biden Campaign.  After Biden's election, it shows continued collusion to silence critics.  In fact, indications are that both parties had access to backdoor channels to censor Twitter posts.  Censorship by proxy.  That the town square of the modern era is hosted on private platforms has created an incentive toward censorship.  As Musk says, Twitter has every right to censor users for whatever reason.  However, once government enters the picture, censorship becomes the tool of a tyrant.  China, Iran, and North Korea have strong controls on what the people may read or hear, the better to control their views.

How might 2020 have played out if the playing field was level?  90% plus of stories on Trump were negative.  In the case of the Hunter Biden laptop, the media buried the story rather than have a negative story against Biden.  Would it have made a difference?  MAGA folks say it would have made all the difference.  Maybe.  In any case, those who spiked the story certainly thought it would make a difference.

Salman Rushdie

In 1988, Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses, was published.  The following year, the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa for Rushdie's death.  Rushdie spent many years in hiding after the fatwa and there have been assassination plots and attempts.  A Japanese translator of the novel was murdered and other translators have been attacked.  On Friday, Rushdie was stabbed multiple times by a 24-year-old Muslim assailant.

Why is The Satanic Verses so controversial?  It is not primarily about Islam though it does relate the source of the title.  Prophet Mohammad had spoken of a trio of Meccan goddesses as worthy.  Of course, this undermined prior readings and were soon withdrawn with the claim that Satan had tricked Muhammad into offering them.  Thus, they are known as the Satanic Verses.  To claim that Allah was only one of many gods was an unforgivable sin.  David Wood offers an explanation as to why the Satanic Verses are a threat to Islamic theology.

All too often, Islam practices a permanent form of censorship.  Theo Van Gogh, Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty, and many others have suffered permanent censorship.

Texas Book Ban

Considering how I rail against censorship, I must surely be opposed to removing books from school libraries.  Not so much.  I went through the list of books that NBC detailed.  Most of them are about sexuality and race.  Mostly sexuality.  Now, I would be absolutely opposed to these books being delisted from Amazon, but I don't know that they are appropriate for primary and secondary education.  What is it we want from K-12 education?  

ThoughtCo proposes the following 7 goals:

1. Knowledge to Get By.  This is the core reading, writing, and arithmetic.

2. Knowledge of Subject Matter Being Taught: I have no idea what the person is talking about here.  This seems like advice for the teacher not to get hyper-focused on one subject.  Studetns should be well-rounded.

3. Creating Thoughtful Citizens: Though the paragraph detailing this is vague to the extreme, this is about critical thinking, knowing how to reason.

4. Self-Esteem and Confidence: Self-explanatory and would resolve itself if points 1 and 2 were successful.

5. Learn How to Learn: I forget where I heard it, but the sign of an education person is that they know where to look up information.  Google has made this much easier.

6. Lifelong Habits for Work: This is the socialization aspect.  Dress and behave appropriately, be on time, and so forth.

7. Teach Students How to Live: Another aspect of socialization, such as proper work ettiquette, cooperation, teamwork, etc.

Will the listed books help in any of these areas?  Maybe self-esteem, which really ought not be on the list.  Self-esteem or confidence without actual knowledge or accomplishment is just delusion.  Little Billy has no ability in math, but let's not damage his self-esteem by giving him grades that show his inability.  Huh?  I am concerned about the ability to communicate this person provided.  Let's try a different site.

The Educator's Room also has 7 goals:

1. To have the basic skills needed to build upon to accomplish whatever task or job is assigned in the future:  Sigh.  Neither brief nor clear.  However, the description is math and language arts are needed for workers of the future.

2. To be a critical thinker: That's better.  Yes, we want people who think rather than feel.  Someone who can analyze information.

3. To be able to troubleshoot or strategize: This is more critical thinking and specifies logical steps to solve problems.  She calls it horse sense.

4. To be a moral person: Ooh, here is a dangerous one.  This fits into socialization.  Kids learn what constitutes good behavior vs. bad behavior.  I would have stated the goal with more secular language.

5. To be a good citizen: Another facet of socialization, this is learning civics, understanding law, and so forth.

6. To have enough interests to be able to have not only a job but outside passions as well: This is about making a person well-rounded.  This is why we have music, art, dance, sports, and other electives in school.

7. To be happy: Self-explanatory and questionable.  This looks like a version of the self-esteem goal from the last one.

A lot of these look repetitive and unclear.  Who writes this stuff?  Let's see what Forbes has to say on the topic:

1. To prepare children for citizenship

2. To cultivate a skilled workforce

3. To teach cultural literacy

4. To help students become critical thinkers

5. To help students compete in a global marketplace

I like this list.  All the goals are so self-explanatory that no detailed description is provided.  I also appreciate that there is no talk of self-esteem or happiness.  If we could teach happiness, we wouldn't have school shooters.  If we could instill self-esteem, we wouldn't have teen suicide.  Dump these nonsense unattainable 'goals' and stick to the concrete stuff.

Back to the books that are proposed for banning: do they help any of the goals?  Are the sex exploits of a gay 17-year-old student a worthwhile book?  Books with rape and pedophilia may provide cultural literacy, but shouldn't that be something for outside of school?  Many of these books might be okay for high school, but I fear they are populating elementary shelves, where they do not belong.

Government-Approved Censorship

In the modern view of the word, censorship can only be practiced by government.  If Time Magazine refused to publish a particular article, that isn't censorship, it's an editorial decision.  The owners of the magazine are not obligated to publish all submissions, nor could they as there are only so many pages available.  However, if the magazine did choose to publish an article and the FBI showed up to get it removed from the magazine, that would be a clear case of censorship.

In this digital age, magazines are being supplanted by websites, articles replaced by podcasts, TV news is being challenged by online news channels.  The interesting thing about these new platforms compared to the old ones is space limitations.  Where there were only so many pages in the newspaper or a magazine, the size online is virtually limitless.  Only so many frequencies for radio or channels on TV?  Again, essentially limitless with the internet.  With capacity no longer a factor, the editorial decisions are more likely to be questioned.  Nonetheless, if Facebook decides that certain people can't use its site, it is a private platform.  Right?  How does that work for brick & mortar businesses that want to exclude people?  A lot less 'editorial' decision there.

With regard to Joe Rogan, would it be censorship if Spotify acquiesced to demands by Neil Young to take down his podcast?  It is a private platform.  Spotify can choose who is on the site and who isn't.  Nothing censorious about that.  However, what if the government announced a preference?  Even if it doesn't send the FBI, government preferences are often enough to nudge business to adopt the preference.  Does the government have a preference regarding Joe Rogan?  Let's see what Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said recently when replying to a question on the topic:

“Sure. Well, last July, as you probably know, but the surgeon general also took the unprecedented step to issue an adviser on the risk of misinformation and public health, which is a very significant step and admitted that he talked about the role social media platforms have. So our hope is that all major tech platforms and all major news sources for that matter be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as Covid-19. That certainly includes Spotify. So this disclaimer, it’s a positive step, but we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation while also uplifting accurate information. I mean look at the facts right?”

Spotify has taken the step of putting disclaimers on some of Rogan's videos, but the White House is encouraging "every platform to continue doing more..."  Sure, those disclaimers are nice and all, but we think you should be doing more.  If platforms take down content after being encouraged by government, would that qualify as censorship?  I think it would.

The New Censors

“There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

- Ray Bradbury, Author of Fahrenheit 451

In all things, there are debates about which side is right and which is wrong.  These debates often lead both sides to see nuance, modifying their views and coming to a synthesis idea which is better than either of the original ideas.  Sometimes, the two ideas are diametrically opposed and cannot reach common ground.  For instance, Israel would like to exist and Palestinians - at least their leadership - will only be satisfied if Israel doesn't exist.  Irreconcilable differences.

When the two sides are closely matched in debaters, free and open debate reigns.  The pundit class has long sat across from each other on various news programs to spout their talking points and degrade the arguments of the other side.  The classic of this format was The McLaughlin Group.  Stalwarts Pat Buchanan for the Right and Eleanor Clift for the Left along with a rogues' gallery of guest pundits would discuss the news of the day.  Great stuff!

In recent years, the pundit class has become soft.  Unable to answer the broadsides launched by new players on the field (e.g. Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, etc.), the opposition seeks to ban them.  The current target is Joe Rogan and his Spotify podcast.  Unable to counter whatever arguments are aired on his podcast or reach as large an audience, his adversaries have called for his cancelation.  "We can't win the argument or answer his claims, so we demand that he be silenced."

"Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself."

Potter Stewart, Supreme Court Justice

When you call for censorship, you are on the wrong side of history.  The censor does not want to control what information he consumes but rather the information you consume.

Deplatforming is the New Censorship

Alex Jones is a crackpot.  I had heard about him from time to time, always in a negative light from one of the various sources I read or watch.  One day, about a year ago, I decided to watch one of his videos.  I don't remember the topic he covered but I knew very quickly he was a conspiracy crank.  And that was that.  I haven't watched him since.  His crackpottery has not troubled me since.

 

Alex Jones is big news today - at least in the places I visit.  He has been banned from Facebook, YouTube, Apple, and Spotify in the last 24 hours.  That's odd.  Why?  Well, each of these sites claim that he has broken the rules by spouting hate or some such.  Uh huh.  So, people voluntarily clicked on his show and were then offended by his crackpottery and demanded that he be banned less they voluntarily click on yet another of his offensive rants.  Okay.  If you find him offensive, don't go to his site.  Ah, but that isn't the problem.  Others go to his site and the would-be censor can prevent them from accessing Jones by lodging complaints.  It's a variant of the denial of service attack.

 

This is a bad precedent.  It is the most recent bad precedent in a string of bad precedents.  Too many have accepted the idea that it is appropriate to obstruct the speech of others.  Berkley had a riot to prevent people from hearing Milo.  Speakers on one side of the aisle are heckled or attacked to prevent or at least disrupt their speech.  Free speech is the fundamental principle of a free society, which is why it is listed in the 1st Amendment.

 

Alex Jones is a nut who spouts conspiracy theories and crazy interpretations of current events.  These four social platforms acting in unison like this might be good fodder for a conspiracy theory.

 

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.

Thomas Paine

 

They came for Milo Yiannopoulos, and I did not speak out - because I was not a homosexual.  Then they came for Alex Jones, and I did not speak out - because I was not a crank.  Then they came for me...