A Virtual Life

http://gothamist.com/2016/01/06/fair_lawn_high_school_palestine_twe.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/nyregion/anti-israel-tweets-land-new-jersey-student-in-principals-office.html?_r=0

https://www.rt.com/usa/328218-new-jersey-bullying-tweets/

The articles cited above appeared in the last day or so. They emphasize several things: the anti-Israel attitude of the Tweeter, the right to free speech, and the concept of bullying. While I don't think that any of these is the real problem, let me comment on them first. Briefly. Very briefly. Her attitude – not unusual for a protected, idealistic, but immature and ignorant (I know some will be offended by my “judgmental” use of the words) teen-ager; free speech – she's entitled to it however offensive her remarks may be to some (“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” -Noam Chomsky, linguistics professor and political activist. He'd probably be a staunch supporter of her views.); bullying – too silly a suggestion to warrant response.

If those were the issues I shouldn't waste my time writing about them, but they're not. I'm sad for the girl, but it's not because of any of the questions I've mentioned. I'm saddened because I suspect that she believes she is performing a public service, and that her words will save the world, or at least demonstrate her “virtue” to everyone. I'm saddened because I think that she is wasting her life in the quest. It's not the subject of her Tweets that concerns me. Whether I agree or disagree with her opinion is irrelevant. And I know there are many others who have expressed the same opinion more publicly and to greater effect. Her words are falling mainly on the screens of like-minded, and equally virtuous, teen-agers, and on the screens of those who will disagree with her vigorously. In the long run, however, they will have no effect and will be soon forgotten.

Of greater concern to me than the message (and, I hope it is of concern to her parents and her school as well) is the messenger. Twitter. And her drowning in it.

According to one of the articles she has sent over 21,000 messages since last February. That's eleven months. About 330 days. Sixty-four or so posts a day. Every day. And it wouldn't surprise me if she reads the messages of others. According to one of the reports she has over 7,000 followers, and many of them probably respond to her Tweets.

She probably follows other posters as well. And reads Facebook. And the other social networks. With eating, sleeping, and school I doubt that she has much time for anything else. And I wonder how much all of this costs her and her parents for access fees, the device itself, and whatever else. I wonder whether she has a real life beyond what she reads on the screen in her hand. She, those who follow her, and those she follows, live vicariously by reaching out to others to whom they may never speak. They substitute what they read about others for their own actions and lives. And by doing so they sacrifice their lives for the privilege.

Another concern of mine relates to the thin skin of the individual who accused her of bullying. But even more so for those who took such a complaint seriously. Our society has become so controlled by the idea of “sensitivity” to the perceived feelings of all its members – to the concepts of offense, and “hate speech” – that we censor the words of others and self-censor our own views so as not to cause discomfort to anyone. Our desire to be “correct” is more harmful to free speech than the words we fear. I can only hope that with time we'll get over this silliness.

The issue of greatest anxiety to me, however, is the fact that the subject of the investigation secretly recorded her conversation with school authorities. It's easy to do nowadays, and it's encouraged by lawyers who want evidence of every “wrong” which may lead to an action. We ourselves have adopted this attitude and this technique even when we don't know how we might use what we obtain. And we certainly use it when we can foresee a use. What better to post than an interaction with an “authority?” It's a technique of tyrants, as well as lawyers, to secretly obtain information about people's views, though they may put that knowledge to a different, and more sinister, use. Nothing is a greater cause of care in what we say, nor inhibits free speech more, than the fear that our words may be used against us by others.

My own concern is not what is happening to the girl who is the center of this dispute, but what she is doing to herself. And I am even more troubled by what we are all doing to ourselves, and to the society in which we live. She has the right to live a virtual life if she so chooses, but she has no right to impose her life on us and make us live in fear.

Where Seldom Is Heard

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.ⁱ

Congress doesn't have to. As a people we do it all the time. Speech may be free – in theory – but the economic and social costs are staggering. Of the two, the economic costs are the lesser consideration. Loss of business because of political views and boycotts, legal costs associated with libel and other trials related to speech issues, and penalties imposed because of what some view as intemperate speech are costly, but only to a few.

But the greater cost is social. Whoever is listening may take issue with what we have to say. Consequently, much of the limitation on the significant part of our “Freedom of Speech” is self imposed. Whether as a result of self-censorship or self-delusion, being PCⁱⁱ is better than being honest. Too often we avoid saying what is controversial, substituting the acceptable and familiar. Why look for trouble? Why risk accusations of insensitivity,ⁱⁱⁱ bullying,^iv or verbal sexism^v and abuse? Why chance alienating someone whose help we may need or whose friendship we want? It's said that “Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you.” Similar wisdom in the past told us that the earth was flat, and it was the center of the universe.

While, for the most part, we are not limited in what we can say, there are some restrictions which the State places on speech (shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater is the most famous of these) but by and large these are minimal. There have been various pieces of legislation (like the “Alien and Sedition Acts”) that have limited speech – at least for a time – but, unlike some other countries, an individual who speaks out against the American government is not likely to disappear. Some secrecy is necessary in order for a government to function and to carry on relations with other countries,^vi though the Freedom of Information Act and the courts provide something of a break against the abuses which may result from unwarranted secretiveness. And otherwise we're free to say whatever we want, however mindless it may be.

But, in view of the risks, an argument can be made that an “excess” of silence is sometimes wiser than complete candor. Too many “leaks,” though sometimes orchestrated by those who complain most about them, may be counterproductive. Better to remain neutral and quiet. Silence is golden. But, as Churchill said, “The hottest place in hell must be reserved for those who, in the face of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” Sadly, too many people fear that it is better to say nothing than the “wrong” thing. Conformity^vii is safer. No one has to know your views. According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution guarantees privacy to all citizens,^viii but there are many legal and non-legal ways around such restrictions.

Our words are also limited by what we can think. To some degree the language we speak, crafted by our forebears, determines what we mean when we use particular words. Orwell, in 1984, demonstrated how that might play out if a strong government used language to limit and fashion the thoughts of the people ruled. Only the virtues of the government and its leader could be expressed.

At the other end of the spectrum, but equally misled, there are many who view self-criticism and criticism of their leaders, as a demonstration of “objectivity,” fairness, and an openness to the views of others. Some of America's greatest critics are Americans. They are not blind, but they wear blinders. Predisposed to favor the weak, they assume the strong are always wrong. They view their adopted position as one of justice and impartiality. Many see it as self-hatred, noting, correctly, that we are often critical of our own group to the exclusion of others.

At least that's our public persona: highly principled and laden with introspection and progressive philosophy. More privately,^ix however, especially on one of our electronic communicators,^x we indulge in the same inane gossip and sophomoric comments as everyone else – revealing much more of ourselves than we might if we reflected on the messages we transmit before hitting the “send” button. And once out of the can it is public forever. People are eager to “share” their thoughts,^xi but everything is recorded, and nothing is forgotten. There are no private thoughts on these media. You don't know the size of your audience or when your “secret” words may go “viral.” The only way to have private thoughts is to keep everything to yourself.^xii After all, we're all prejudiced against something, even if it's only prejudice itself. So we're better off if others don't know of our biases lest we be lambasted for them. Or accused of hate speech.

But it is difficult not to wonder how long that will last. With prostheses now available that respond to thoughts, it is likely that sooner or later there will be other devices that will transmit more complex thoughts to others. Or devices that they use to transmit their thoughts to us. Authorities have strong views on many subjects (not only the wish to guarantee their own acceptance by the individual^xiii) and they will want us to share their perspective. Mottoes, slogans, the “bully pulpit” and the power of the press may work for now,^xiv but more powerful tools will be available in the future.

What can I say? The monks have it right. Silence is golden. But not for long. Mind-reading and thought control are in the wings.

What can you say? This is one of those cases where “less is more.” Or at least it's more desirable. Silence may be golden now, but it won't work forever. Take advantage of it while you can. So, for the moment, say as little as possible, and only to those you trust. Then, when your trust is violated, and that, unfortunately, is inevitable, you won't be too much at risk of misinterpretation.^xv But it will happen. So whatever you're thinking or saying, fuggedaboutit.

Next episode: “The Root Of All Evil” – And, in the words of Milton Berle, “I'm right in there rooting.”

i     First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1791.

ii     Politically Correct.

iii    For example, we never speak of “blind” people when referring to the visually challenged. Nor do we ever talk about Islam except to praise it. Saying anything else labels us as bigots.

iv    Any criticism may be viewed as bullying.

v     Never speak ill of the opposite sex. Or your sex. Or at all.

vi    Even businesses and labor unions require some degree of privacy, as do politicians. Negotiations and compromise are difficult in public where more posturing is necessary.

vii    With the ideas of whatever group you currently adhere to.

viii   Even if that idea is nowhere to be found in the document.

ix     At least we believe it's more privately.

x     Dick Tracy's wrist radio has grown up.

xi     They assume that others actually care.

xii   “Thoughts” by public figures seem to be public by design. They're formed to elicit publicity.

xiii   Typical examples are the Church's reaction to Galileo and science, the Nazi response to music – especially that by Jews, and the Communists' view of art and realism.

xiv    See 1984.

xv    Human nature is human nature. Don't expect it to change for you.

Hate Speech – The Case For (Against?)

“Suffer you mother-*#&@%<~ son-of-a-!%*&$. I hope you rot in Hell.” Not a nice thing to hear. Especially if you're being kicked at the same time. It's assault, and it's punishable as such.

But what about “I pray that you are forgiven.” Said to a homosexual, as the speaker knocks the wallet from his hand while he is preparing to make a contribution to an LGBTⁱ charity, it's hate speechⁱⁱ and it may also deemed assault,ⁱⁱⁱ but more than that, because of what was said, in this instance it's also a hate crime.

The First Amendment, it seems, has become a framework for various pressure groups to use when promoting their aims. Thus:

“In 1977, the ACLU filed suit against the Village of Skokie, Illinois, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of three town ordinances outlawing Neo-Nazi parades and demonstrations. Skokie, Illinois at the time had a majority population of Jews, totaling 40,000 of 70,000 citizens. A federal district court struck down the ordinances in a decision eventually affirmed by the Supreme Court.”^iv

Free speech had to be protected irrespective of the consequences, but in an age of diversity and multiculturalism

“Islam and Freedom of speech has become a contentious issue in recent times. The limits of what is, and what is not, acceptable speech is becoming a new battleground between Islam and the west. The issue came to a head in September 2005 a few days before Ramadan when the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed insulting and blasphemous cartoons of our noble Prophet.”

That statement, and its explication of “acceptable speech,” as printed in the blog of Caliphate Online, doesn't come as much of a surprise. The fact that important American publications refused to publish those cartoons, however, is a little more troublesome. Although there are loud protests whenever their own actions are criticised, and accusations that other parties would abridge their First Amendment rights, “Major American newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Chicago Tribune, did not publish the caricatures. Representatives said the story could be told effectively without publishing images that many would find offensive.”^v They chose, in this instance, to practice self censorship. Free speech was less important than not offending others. Sensitivity was the prime consideration in reporting this piece of news. When it comes to expressing editorial policy, however, the same papers are not at all reticent about stating views that many will find offensive. First amendment rights and free speech^vi are for those who can afford it, and they can exercise it whenever they choose to do so. And, as they have demonstrated, they can eschew it whenever they choose to do so. Notwithstanding any protestations of virtue and concern, their agendas seem to reflect politics rather than sensitivity.

And some publishers had other motives. “John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said the press has a long history of defending free expression, but the risk of violence in this case, outweighed the benefit of including the images, which can easily be found on the Internet.”^vii The same fear of violence motivated other publishers to take the same course.

“Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ... ” That was the take on speech in 1789^viii But that has since been viewed as more a theory than as an appropriate reality. Though the Constitution said nothing about judicial interpretations of that or other mandates, nor about legislative measures that respond to the Court's decisions, it's clear that the First Amendment (as well as the remainder of the Constitution and its amendments) is flexible.^ix It shouldn't be taken too seriously. It's not an absolute. It is more important that we not risk the possibility that emotional harm that might come to anyone who is in a preferred^x group. That, of course, is not everyone, as the ACLU has shown.

And the definitions of “free speech” and one's First Amendment rights are also somewhat fluid. They include both the requirement that one be able to express his views, even if others^xi may find them hateful, and that he be able to prevent those others^xii from expressing theirs. It may not be clear from a simple reading of the Constitution that these “rights” exist, but executive, legislative, and judicial practice reflect the fact that they have a significant presence in the American ethos. Surely they're in the Constitution. How could it be otherwise? If we haven't found them, we haven't looked hard enough.

We are left with a language of sensitivity and euphemisms. We are reluctant to “call a spade a spade.” So we deny the language we learned as children and substitute code words when we suspect precision will cause discomfort (without always asking those we see as “victims” whether they agree). Later, however, we'll have to substitute other code words when we feel that the ones we have been using have taken on the pejorative tone at which we cringe.^xiii We practice self-censorship and the censorship of others with whom we disagree. And if we cannot censor, we punish. Somewhere along the line “hate speech” has become more offensive than any crime it might accompany. And the ACLU seems to take note only of certain “offenses” while ignoring others. It is clearly inappropriate to defend those who would insult Muslims, blacks, homosexuals, or others who might be offended. That would show a lack of sensitivity for their feelings, and the Constitution certainly shouldn't protect that. But if Nazis want to affront Jews or others, stopping them would be in violation of the same Constitution.

I know it's wrong of me to think so, but from my perspective there should be a single standard – either all speech designed to express opinion is permissible^xiv or it isn't. If the latter position is to be adopted, then it should apply to every instance in which an individual takes exception to what is being said or done. It should not be made the rule only for some preferred people of groups. But in any case, I don't think that was the intent of the Founding Fathers. If the media are free to express opinions, so are individuals. And a crime is a crime. It is the crime that should be prosecuted, irrespective of the motive. If the opinion of the perpetrator is the decisor of the significance of the crime, we have lost the freedom to form our own opinions, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meaningless. However attractive that may be to many among us, we will all lose by it. “Acceptable speech” is not acceptable.

Next episode: “Mom, Pop, And Jack The Killer Giant” – Burnt fat and me.

i     Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans-gender.

ii    The previous declaration, since it mentions “mother” and “son,” clearly expresses family values and represents a statement of love, not hate.

iii    And it's probably a few other crimes as well.

iv    Wikipedia article on ACLU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union

v     U.S. Says It Also Finds Cartoons of Muhammad Offensive, Joel Brinkley and Ian Fisher, New York Times, February 4, 2006

vi    Ditto propaganda.

vii    Patricia Cohen, The New York Times, August 12, 2009. The view, apparently, was that others should take any risks involved. Yale was playing it safe.

viii    That's when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the new states. It wasn't ratified until 1791.

ix    I'll comment on the Judiciary in a future essay – a continuation of the ongoing series on proposals for changes in the Constitution.

x     Read “minority,” although that is a political, not a mathematical term.

xi    Who are not in one of the favored groups.

xii    See note x. It is permissible, indeed appropriate, to shout down those who would espouse a contrary view.

xiii    I recently heard on the radio about a politician who was taken to task for using the word “disabled.” Some felt that this was too harsh. Presumably they preferred “differently able” or “challenged,” but the individual who had been careful not to specify the disability (lest it be considered insensitive) was berated.

xiv   Holmes's exception for speech intended to cause danger – he mentioned “fire” in a crowded theater – however, makes sense. I'd also make an exception for speech (or publication of material) that threatens pubblic or national security. Some governmental secrecy is necessary if we are to be able to deal with other nations.

Sez Who?

 

“One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”

“Muslims are the majority of terrorists.”

Where do you draw the line between bias, opinion, and fact?  And where does outright lying fit in?  Should you draw a line?  How shall we interpret and implement the First Amendment?ⁱ

Justice Potter Stewart is remembered (among other things) for his attempted definition of “hard-core pornography”: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it …”ⁱⁱ Not everyone agreed,ⁱⁱⁱ some questioning the “definition” and others the decision. In fact, another concurring opinion in the same case, that of Justices Black and Douglas, maintained that the First Amendment does not permit censorship of any kind. Is “censorship” the same thing as the banning of free speech? And is it really total?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. didn't think so, writing "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."^iv Why not?  The test that the Court applied was the possibility of creating a “clear and present danger.”^v In the case they were evaluating, the Court decided unanimously that the plaintiff had crossed that line by pamphleteering against the [First World] war and urging draftees not to cooperate, and his conviction for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act was upheld. Speaking for the entire court Holmes related the view that particular statements had to be viewed in the context of the times. Statements which were considered unexceptionable in peacetime might be punishable in time of war.

But ideas about the definition of obscenity and clear and present danger aren't really the main issue. The real question has to do with free speech. Is it absolute?

That, though, brings up another question. Are there absolutes? Or do views of “eternal truths” really depend on the times and mores. What does a Justice “know?” Justice Stewart was sure of himself, but was he doing any more than expressing a prejudice?

And, who decides what [absolute] community standards are? If those are the benchmarks by which people and ideas are to be judged, there has to be some way the individual will know what they are, and what the law is, if only so he can obey it. Although the decision would ultimately be made by a jury, the standard remains very subjective and that presents the possibility that someone might act in good faith according to what he believes are reasonable standards, but be overruled by a more conservative jury.

That kind of subjective criterion for what is and is not acceptable is also one that has been the focus of more recent debate. It has yielded euphemism as an art form, and euphemisms as societal norms: politically correct speech and the entire idea of “hate” speech are good examples. So is “advocacy journalism” – the use of what pose as objective news stories to promote personal biases or political spins. It is the Trojan Horse of journalism.

What's the line between “hate speech” and “fire?” Is there one? I think so. And my inclination would be that it relates to what the speech is likely to provoke or has already provoked. If the crime was caused by the speech,^vi the speech should be actionable. If the crime did not specifically result from the speech, it is the crime that should be punished, and adding a penalty for “bias” is simply a means of discouraging free speech. In the case of the individual who cries “wolf,” whose shouts of “fire” cause a crowd to stampede and result in an injury or death, the shouts are crimes additional to the injury or death and should be prosecuted as such. However offensive we may find calling a Jew a “kike” before mugging him, though, the crime was the mugging, not the insult. Using his words to add an additional punishable offense – a hate crime^vii – impinges on his freedom of speech.

Much remains subjective. But the punishment of speech that does not result in physical injury seems a contradiction of what we consider a basic right. The view that a particular statement is a threat, that it insults someone, or that it may cause psychological damage,^viii is certainly one that must be respected, however censorship is a solution that is even more threatening. No one will defend the idea that “names will never hurt you.” They will. As will verbal abuse and bullying. But punishing the name-caller is not the solution. Justice Louis Brandeis said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."^ix,x,xi

Next episode: “Pride And Principles” – Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, and American Foreign Policy

i     The real question relates to what the first amendment (and, by extension, the fourteenth – Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 1925) covers. That seems to be a moving target.

ii    Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 1964. His opinion concurred with the Court's that the film that was being evaluated fell into the category of protected speech which, in his view, permitted all obscenity except hard core pornography.

iii   The Court, itself, later changed its view of obscenity. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 1973 it loosened its definition, making “community standards” the deciding factor.

iv    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919.

v     The “imminent lawless action” test (the Brandenburg test) has replaced that concept. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 1969.

vi    Libel and incitement are two examples that come to mind immediately.

vii    Hate speech will be discussed in a future blog. Nah. Whom am I kidding? I haven't been subtle about where I stand, in this or prior blogs, so let me finish this off now. The whole idea of “hate speech” is obtuse. It's the creation of PD (politically delicate) people who are so sensitive to the feelings of others that they would sacrifice free speech and liberty in general for the chance to appear to be concerned for the rights of others. It's simply a way to pile on charges when someone is accused of another crime. Correctness is more important to them than the First Amendment. I don't buy that argument for a moment. There's no need to waste another blog on it.

viii     It is, however, difficult to determine who would be wise enough to make such a decision.

ix     Emphasis added.

x     Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 1927. Justice Brandeis joined in the decision to uphold the law under which the plaintiff was convicted, but that was for Constitutional reasons separate from the facts of the case.

xi    “The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert Jackson