On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, held a two-hour hearing on a House bill HR 1865, Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017. The Senate has a similar bill, SESTA, Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, S1693 . Ann Wagner (R-MO) had a press release in April 2017, with this commentary. Govtrack also offers this provocative editorial.
Electronic Frontier Foundation has a blog posting by Elliot Harmon, Sophia Cope, and India McKinney. The actual session starts at about 23 minutes in.
The hearings were chaired by Steve Chabot, R-OH. Jackson Lee (D-TX) gave a long statement.
There were four speakers. All of them recognized that Section 230 had been essential for the growth of user-generated content by relieving service providers of much potential downstream liability that would require prescreening of content before it could be published.
Chris Cox, a former SEC Chairman during Reagan, explained how Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act after a decision (Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy) held that a service provider who tried to do any “good Samaritan” editing of user content became a publisher of the content and liable for all user content from the facility, forcing pre-screening everything. Cox explained that the law should encourage sample monitoring for content that is grossly illegal, without penalizing for content that cannot be caught when providers act in good faith.
Cox would also later explain that right now there is no “knowing” standard for most illegal content (except probably child pornography). A website operator loses section 230 protection only when it participates in creating or curating illegal content.
USA Naval Academy Cybersecurity Professor Jeff Kosseff spoke, relaying similar concerns. He said that with the House bill as proposed now, he would advise clients not to take the risk of inviting user-generated content at all.
Catholic University Columbus School of Law professor Mary Leary testified that the sex trafficking problem had become an emergency, extending beyond very reasonable parallel concerns about promoting terrorism or providing murder for hire. Leary works with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
There was mention of the long running Roommates.com case, where the site was sued for allowing users to post requests discriminating in what sounds like a personal choice of roommates.
There was a suggestion that Sex Trafficking should be handled just like child pornography, where there is a knowing standard.
There was incidental mention of the Las Vegas shootings, with talk of stricture laws on gun add-ons to make them into machine guns. There was also a suggested that any undocumented victims would not be pursued by USCIS.
It is important to pause for a moment and take stock of another possible idea that can threaten freedom of speech and self-publication on the Internet without gatekeepers as we know it now, and that would be “implicit content”.
This concept refers to a situation where an online speaker publishes content that he can reasonably anticipate that some other party whom the speaker knows to be combative, un-intact, or immature (especially a legal minor) will in turn act harmfully toward others, possibly toward specific targets, or toward the self. The concept views the identity of the speaker and presumed motive for the speech as part of the content, almost as if borrowed from object-oriented programming.
The most common example that would be relatively well known so far occurs when one person deliberately encourages others using social media (especially Facebook, Twitter or Instagram) to target and harass some particular user of that platform. Twitter especially has sometimes suspended or permanently closed accounts for this behavior, and specifically spells this out as a TOS violation. Another variation might come from a recent example where a female encouraged a depressed boyfriend to commit suicide using her smartphone with texts and was convicted of manslaughter, so this can be criminal. The concept complicates the normal interpretation of free speech limitation as stopping where there is direct incitement of unlawful activity (like rioting).
I would be concerned however that even some speech that is normally seen as policy debate could fall under this category when conducted by “amateurs” because of the asymmetry of the Internet with the way search engines can magnify anyone’s content and make it viral or famous. This can happen with certain content that offends others of certain groups, especially religious (radical Islam), racial, or sometimes ideological (as possibly with extreme forms of Communism). In extreme cases, this sort of situation could cause a major (asymmetric) national security risk.
A variation of this problem occurred with me when I worked as a substitute teacher in 2005 (see pingback hyperlink here on July 19, 2016). There are a couple of important features of this problem. One is that it is really more likely to occur with conventional websites with ample text content and indexed by search engines in a normal way (even allowing for all the algorithms) than with social media accounts, whose internal content is usually not indexed much and which can be partially hidden by privacy settings or “whitelisting”. That would have been true pre-social media with, for example, discussion forums (like those on AOL in the late 1990s). Another feature is that it may be more likely with a site that is viewed free, without login or subscription. One problem is that such content might be viewed as legally problematic if it wasn’t paid for (ironically) but had been posted only for “provocateur” purposes, invoking possible “mens rea”.
I could suggest another example, of what might seem to others as “gratuitous publication”. I have often posted video and photos of demonstrations, from BLM marches to Trump protests, as “news”. Suppose I posted a segment from an “alt-right” march, from a specific group that I won’t name. Such a march may happen in Washington DC next weekend (following up Charlottesville). I could say that it is simply citizen journalism, reporting what I see. Others would say I’m giving specific hate groups a platform, which is where TOS problems could arise. Of course I could show counterdemonstrations from the other “side”. I don’t recognize the idea that, among any groups that use coercion or force, that one is somehow more acceptable to present than another (Trump’s problem, again.) But you can see the slippery slope.
When harm comes to others after “provocative” content is posted, the hosting sites or services would normally be protected by Section 230 in the US (I presume). However, it sounds like there have been some cases where litigation has been attempted. Furthermore, we know that very recently, large Internet service platforms have cut off at least one (maybe more) website associated with extreme hate speech or neo-Nazism. Service platforms, despite their understandable insistence that they need the downstream liability protections of Section 230, have become more pro-active in trying to eliminate users publishing what they consider (often illegal) objectionable material. This includes, of course, child pornography and probably sex trafficking, and terrorist group recruiting, but it also could include causing other parties to be harassed, and could gradually expand to subsumed novel national security threats. But it now seems to include “hate speech”, which I personally think ought to be construed as “combativeness” or lawlessness. But that brings us to another point: some extreme groups would consider amateur policy discussions that take a neutral tone and try to avoid taking sides (that is, avoiding naming some groups as enemies instead of others, as with Trump’s problems after Charlottesville), as implicitly “hateful” by default when the speaker doesn’t put his own skin in the game. This (as Cloudflare’s CEO pointed out) could put Internet companies in a serious ethical bind.
Timothy B. Lee recently published in Ars-Technica, an updateon the “Backpage” bills in Congress, which would weaken Section 230 protections. Lee does seem to imply that the providers most at risk remain isolated to those whose main content is advertisements, rather than discussions; and so far he hasn’t addressed with shared hosting providers could be put at risk. (I asked him that on Twitter.) But some observer believe that the bills could lead states to require that sites with user-logon provide adult-id verification. We all know that this was litigated before with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which was ruled unconstitutional finally in early 2007. I was a party to that litigation under Electronic Frontier Foundation sponsorship. Ironically, the judge mentioned “implicit content” the day that I sat in on the arguments (in Philadelphia).
I wanted to add a comment here that probably could belong on either of my two previous posts. That is, yes, our whole civilization has become very dependent on technology, and, yes, a determined enemy could give us a very rude shock. Born in 1943, I have lived through years that have generally been stable, surviving the two most serious crises (the Vietnam military draft in the 1960s and then HIV in the 1980s) that came from the outside world. A sudden shock like that in NBC’s “Revolution” is possible. But I could imagine being born around 1765, living as a white landowner in the South, having experienced the American Revolution and then the Constitution as a teen, and only gradually coming to grips with the idea that my world would be expropriated from me because an underlying common moral evil, before I died (if I was genetically lucky enough to live to 100 without modern medicine). Yet I would have had no grasp of the idea of a technological future, that itself could be put it risk because, for all its benefits in raising living standards, still seemed to leave a lot of people behind.
I’ve had a running debate on Facebook Messenger with a particular friend in northern Virginia’s LGBT leadership, and he asked that his name not be reproduced because be feared (however facetiously) the “alt-right”.
I have said to him that I resist being drawn into specific initiatives sponsored generally by the political Left on narrow issues mostly having to do with discrimination (however “systematic” the “oppression”) against (members of) self-defined groups. Likewise, right now at least, I don’t raise money under my own name (like with GoFundMe) for “other people’s causes” however compelling (I don’t ask people to give for the Houston flood, except maybe here in this post; I simply do it myself.) That could even change in the future with certain circumstances. I’ve said I want to focus on civilization-threatening problems like North Korea, nuclear weapons, power grid security. I also want to focus on subtle free-speech (and gatekeeper resistance) problems, like downstream liability and implicit content. I’ve said that “we” have bigger problems than bathroom bills. (As I type this, I hear on CNN that North Korea claims now to have miniaturized ICBM-mountable hydrogen bombs, not “just” Hiroshima-like atomic bombs. And we have Trump with the nuclear suitcase.)
My friend (whom I see as pretty centrist between Left and Right, more or less with Hillary Clinton’s positions on most things, much more conservative than Sanders or even Obama) agrees that the GOP should focus on actually fixing healthcare, securing infrastructure security and solving the problems with refugees, and with enemies like ISIS and North Korea — and facing the responsibility to future generations on climate change. He says it is the GOP that looks for scapegoats (right now, transgender people) with bathroom bills or pseudo-religious freedom bills. I agree. And some parts of the alt-right make scapegoats of all immigrants, and are more aggressive in a desire to subjugate non-white people than I would have believed. This puts pressure on me to come back to focus on defending “oppressed groups” rather than paying attention to existential problems that can affect us all. In my situation (benefiting from inheritance and trying to downsize myself out of a house partly for “political” reasons), it gets harder to work on what I want than on what others would demand of me. It’s harder to stay away from unwelcome personal entanglements.
Here are a few of his comments:
“Focusing on infrastructure like FDR did during the Great Depression, of that scale, is definitely the winning ticket. The real problem is the GOP in Congress doesn’t want to spend money, especially on big national projects. However, they will if it is funneled through the largely Republican controlled states. So the grid and space projects all have to be designed as pork spending to states with only a small national office to coordinate, if that. Moreover, the money has to go to key swing states.
“I’m getting tired of this extreme bipolar discord manufactured by billionaires who spend their money on this negative crap rather than helping society in productive ways. None of this was in the news (Page 1) until Trump began dangling red meat at crowds to capitalize off fringe. Even the labels of left and right are becoming meaningless. Whatever happened to a sense of decency? It’s been replaced by circus clown.
“I look at another way. The bathroom bills are pushed and funded by right wingers who make it a priority over everything else. The LGBTQ-activist aren’t to blame for reacting. The blame lies squarely with the well-funded right that wants to obliterate all the gays off the face of the earth. And any progress made in the last 20 years. Why pinpoint blame people who fight against them for human rights and social justice. It makes no sense to me. You are right however, that the priorities of the nation need to be focused on things like infrastructure and beefing up national defense.”
I think there is more to say here. People “on the right” see meaning in forcing others to comply with the same moral rules they think they should follow; that’s their answer to “inequality”. They also have to deal with the logically existential idea of personal “rightsizing”.
It strikes me that the alt-right uses identity politics and even “intersectionality” much as does the radical Left. The groups are different. But the exploitation of “relative deprivation” (and the personal undeservedness of others) is the same, even if the Right seems to have much less justification in history.
(Posted: Saturday, September 2, 2017, at 9 PM EDT)
So, why am I so paranoid that some new era of censorship or regulation or some sort of national calamity could force me to give up my own ungated soap box (mostly Internet and self-published books)?
“Why don’t you just volunteer or work for a non-profit or for gay or trans rights?” (I’m cis.) It’s true, that in more recent months people have come knocking and sometimes border on becoming confrontational.
I think anyone would resent an outside party’s walking in the door and bargaining with him about his own self-determined goals in life. There’s a parallel to how we felt in the workplace in the 80s and 90s when we thought our jobs could be bargained away for someone else’s shareholder value (call it rentier capitalism).
So here I am, on the other side, as the “capitalist” in a sense, partially (and perhaps unhealthfully) dependent on inherited wealth (the “heiristocracy” of Heather Boushey’s “After Piketty”). I get chased about actually making my hardcopy books sell so that people in stores have jobs (and people at publishing companies), or about ideas like running my own personalized “gofundme” for some group or cause. Or perhaps hounded for donations by some online publication, usually Leftist, that claims only they can be my voice.
It seems that if you speak out for yourself and don’t have a specific challenge to deal with or a specific dependent needing you and then remain neutral, you’re seen as an aggressor. I get the point about the (Confederate) statues now, but removing them would never be “my” mission. But that doesn’t seem to be good enough for some of the angrier activists.
I’ve always viewed morality as an individualized issue: what a person does, regardless of external circumstances, is of moral concern, and yet a person can bear personal accountability for what a (privileged) group that she depends on does (the “Scarlet O’Hara” problem). I’ve never viewed personal morality as relative to belonging to an oppressed group. So (at least since the early post-Stonewall days) I’ve paid little attention to group-oppression-centered activism, which can anger some people. Yet, I may sound snarky to say “shouting in a demonstration is beneath me”. But that is how I fee;. It’s the “watcher” problem of the movie “Rebirth”. Indeed, activists on “both” sides often hate “journalists” including citizen journalists who don’t join up.
There does seem to be an informal expectation in social media that you’re open to personally assisting others whom you didn’t already know. This kind of moral ecology seems to have accelerated since the second Obama term started. And it’s often linked to identity politics: someone should be assisted specifically because he/she/”they” belongs to a marginalized group. There’s also a willingness to display a disadvantaged person as a dependent or best friend. That isn’t something I would do. Until maybe five years ago, it wouldn’t have been expected.
There seems to be a break in the moral continuity of my thought. If I comment critically on what politicians want to do about the various issues, do I really “care” personally about the people affected? I could certainly say that I did when I got publicly involved with some of the more controversial aspects of the HIV crisis in the 1980s. I did become a “buddy” (although a “baby buddy”) at the Oak Lawn Counseling Center in Dallas where I lived. Likewise, there is some integrity to that when I dealt with the gays in the military issue as I started by books in the 1990s. It does seem much less true today. I don’t automatically “care” about someone just because “they” claim to be in a marginalized group. So, an activist or “privilege challenger” can ask, why are you even talking about this on your own if you don’t have your own skin in the game? You have no kids, you have no standing, you have no stake. Join up or else. I can retort, “you” know some of your own history, but only for your own narrow interest. I’ve commented about military conscription a lot because I went through it (1968-1970), but today’s protesters seem to have no idea that it even happened. Nor do they care – it’s only about the particular oppression of the moment.
Furthermore, my tendency to cherry pick and use upward affiliation in approaching more intimate personal relationships would make some people wonder if I “can care about people” (Ninth Street Center talk indeed). Would I stay in a relationship if something “happened” to a partner to make him less attractive? I’ve never been tested in that way directly, but I’ve moved away from situations where I sense this could happen in the future (in a way prescient, in the late 1970s, of the coming AIDS crisis).
This is all very sobering. I can say that I am open to personal involvement when it comes out of something I am doing. I’ve written about the asylum seeker issue for the past year, and I did consider hosting. But it always seem to break down when I asked for more detailed discussions about the legal liability risks I was taking. I would remain “Outside Man”, like in the Army on KP. I say, let’s have more transparency on the risks we expect the more “privileged” people to take. (Remember the student deferment issue?)
I can understand, for example, the stake of a filmmaker who has filmed the story of a disabled person in in special Olympics. But would I choose to make such a person the hero of my own narrative? Probably not. Indeed, there’s something disturbing about some of my own fiction projects that center around a hero character more or less like Smallville’s teen Clark Kent, without any real attempt at diversity. If my “angels” make their Earth evacuation and leave everyone else behind (“The Leftovers”) what message does that send? Five years ago that would have seemed mainstream sci-fi. Now I wonder if it would be perceived as “hate speech”.
Well, conservatives particularly want tech giants to put more of their own skin (downstream liability) into fighting sex trafficking (at least the way they would fight child pornography), in kicking off terrorist recruiters, in stopping piracy, and in stopping cyberbullying and in protecting children with filters (remember COPA? VidAngel has taken this on and its own troubles).
And tech giants, in return, have shown they have a much greater awareness of fake news and “hate speech” on their platforms than they have previously admitted.
The responsibility and capability of large private companies to decide what stays on the Internet or can be accessed by ordinary users seems to be coming into focus as a real controversy.
Just recently (Aug. 4), I’ve discussed how recent well-motivated bills in Congress aimed at inhibiting sex trafficking (usually of underage girls) could jeopardize much of the downstream liability exclusion (Section 230) that allow user-generated content to be posted on the Web (and that allow individuals to express themselves on their own through social media, blogs, and their own share-hosted websites) without expensive and bureaucratic third-party gatekeepers. This is tied with an undertone, not often argued openly, of controversy over whether “amateur” web content needs to be able to pay its own way . That latter-day proposition becomes dubious at the outset when you consider the observation made recently on CNN’s series “The 90s” that the first businesses to make money with web sites were pornography, which even was the first content source to set up credit card use and merchant accounts online.
But judging from the quick reaction of offense in the tech community to the extreme right wing march in Charlottesville, leading to a tragic death of a peaceful counter protester at the hands of a right-wing domestic terrorist who showed up. Companies do know a lot about what is getting posted. Matthew Prince of Cloudflare wrote a disturbing op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, about his second thoughts after pulling the plug on Daily Stormer. Prince, while admitting that no service provider can possibly screen every user-generated item on its site, implies that providers do have a great deal of knowledge of what is going on and can censor offensive content (like racism) if they think they have to, Prince also makes the hyperbolic and alarming statement that almost any site with even mildly controversial content will eventually get hacked (or perhaps draw a SLAPP suit). Yet Prince’s own article would qualify the WSJ as such a site.
Prince argues that there needs to be some sort of international “due process” body regarding kicking sites or content off; it’s easy to imagine how a group like Electronic Frontier Foundation will react. In fact, I see that Jeremy Malcolm, Cindy Cohn and Danny O’Brien have a thorough discussion of the private “due process” issue and all its possible components here. Particularly important is that people understand the domain name system as standing apart from content hosting. EFF also points out that relaxing net neutrality rules could allow telecom companies to refuse connection to content that they see as politically subservice.
Indeed, there are many ways for content to be objectionable. Donald Trump, in a teleprompted speech to veterans from Reno today, mentioned the need to stop terror recruiting on the Internet . (Is this just ISIS, or would it include neo-Nazi’s and “anarchists”). Twitter’s controversy over this is well known, and we should not forget that most of this process happens off-shore with encrypted messaging apps, not just websites and social media. Other problems include cyberbullying (including revenge porn), fake news (and the way social media platforms can manipulate it – again a sign that providers do know what they are doing sometimes) and also possibly asymmetrically triggering foreign national security threats (hint: the Sony Pictures hack, as well as attracting steganography). “Free speech” may indeed become a very subjective concept.
CNN has run an op-ed by John Blake, “White Supremacists by Default: How ordinary people made Charlottesville possible.”
Yes, to some extent, this piece is an “I am my brother’s keeper” viewpoint familiar from Sunday School. But at another level the piece has major moral implications regarding the everyday personal choices we make, and particularly the way we speak out or remain silent.
I grew up in a way in which I did not become conscious of class or race or belonging to a tribe, or people. I was not exposed to the idea of “systematic oppression” against people who belong to some recognizable group. My self-concept was pretty separated from group identity.
I gradually became aware that I would grow up “different” especially with respect to sexuality. But I believed it was incumbent on me to learn to perform in a manner commensurate with my gender, because the welfare of others in the family or community or country could depend on that capacity. My sense of inferiority was driven first by lack of that performance, which then morphed into other ideas about appearance and what makes a male (or then female) look desirable.
I remember, back in the mid 1990s, about the time I was starting to work on my first DADT book, an African-American co-worker (another mainframe computer programmer) where I worked in northern Virginia said that he was teaching his young son to grow up to deal with discrimination. Another African-American coworker who had attended West Point said I had no idea what real discrimination was like, because I could just pass. (That person thought I lived “at home” with my Mother since I was never married.) I would subsequently be a witness in litigation by a former black employee whom I replaced with an internal transfer, and the “libertarianism” in my own deposition seemed to be noticed by the judge dismissing the case.
Indeed, the activism in the gay community always had to deal with the “conduct” vs. “group identity” problem, particularly during the AIDS crisis of the 1990s. Libertarians and moderate conservatives like me (I didn’t formally belong to Log Cabin Republicans but tended to like a lot of things about Reagan and personally fared well when he was in office) were focused on privacy (in the day when double lives were common) and personal responsibility, whereas more radical activists saw systematic oppression as related to definable gender-related class. Since I was well within the upper middle class and earned a good income with few debts and could pay my bills, both conservatives with large families and radical activists born out of disadvantage saw me as a problem.
The more radical commentators today are insisting that White Nationalists have an agenda of re-imposing or augmenting systematic oppression by race, even to be ultimate end of overthrowing normal civil liberties, reintroducing racial subjugation and other forms of authoritarian order. The groups on the extreme right are enemies (of people of color) as much as radical Islam has made itself an enemy of all civilization. Radicals insist that those who normally want to maintain some objectivity and personal distance must be recruited to actively fighting with them to eliminate this one specific enemy. This could lead to vigilantism (especially online) to those who speak out on their own but who will not join in with them. Ii do get the idea of systemic oppression, but I think that meeting has a lot more to do with the integrity of individual conduct. But this goes quite deep. Refusing to date a member of a different race could be viewed as active racism (June 26).
The possibility of including ordinary independent speakers or observers (or videographers) among the complicit indirect systematic “oppressors” should not be overlooked. Look at the comments and self-criticism of Cloudfare CEO Matthew Prince, about the dangers of new forms of pro-active censorship by Internet companies. This does bear on the Backpge-Section 230 problem, and we’ll come back to this again. In a world with so many bizarre asymmetric threats, I can imagine that Internet companies could expand the list of certain speech content that they believe they cannot risk allowing to stay up (hint: Sony).
I want to add, I do get the idea that many left-wing activists (not just limited to Antifa) believe that Trump was elected in large part by white supremacists and that there is a more specific danger to everyone else in what he owes this part of his base. I have not taken this idea very seriously before, but now I am starting to wonder.
(Posted: Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 6:15 PM EDT)
I tuned on to CNN early Saturday morning in time to see the confrontations and fights breaking out in Charlottesville near Emancipation Park. I saw coverage of the report that the “Unite the Right” rally would be canceled by police order. I went to see a film Saturday afternoon and did not learn of the vehicle attack, that had happened at about 1:30 PM, until about 5 PM, even after running into friends. So my perception of the gravity of what was going on changed throughout the day. Frankly, I had not been aware that such a large assembly of “white supremacists” could congregate. And, yes, this is domestic terrorism, from a right wing group(s).
I sometimes film demonstrations, without participating In them, which some people consider the “cowardly watcher” syndrome. But not this time. But had I gone, I could have been killed as easily (by chance) as they young paralegal woman who died. Generally, I do not like to be asked to join movements against specific enemy groups by name. (We get into Trump’s “on many sides” exit.)
My first reaction concerned the statute (of Robert E. Lee) itself. I’ve seen it, having visited gay pride celebrations in Charlottesville (most recently in September 2015). I would say, we can’t deny or hide history. We shouldn’t hide the Holocaust, or hide the Civil War. But, of course, no one would support a sculpture of Hitler for the sake of “history”. The Civil War generals fought on the wrong side. Yet, we accept the idea of a Lee mansion park run by the NPS in Arlington Cemetery. We accept the monuments in Richmond (or maybe we don’t). We’ve come to the point (begrudgingly) that states should not fly confederate flags on their properties.
It’s important, however, that we remember history, even if we have to be careful about what we commemorate. Think about how these ideas apply to the Vietnam war. Some people would rather not talk about some aspects of it at all, like the military draft, for fear that it could come back and divert attention from more immediate needs of “identity groups”.
I was not aware at first how connected the Charlottesville “event” had been organized by “white supremacists”, the KKK, neo-Nazis, and then the likes of David Duke and Richard Spencer (with various “alt-right” factions). My first impression of the counter protest that it was likely to be an example of a combative, militant left (“ANTIFA”) against a militant right (as at Milo Yiannopoulos’s events). This doesn’t seem to be true. My understanding that they were mostly non-violent protestors. But I may have gotten my first impression from seeing the fights live on CNN. Some counter protestors apparently did bring weapons. Personally, I ignore “white” identity politics the way I ignore the identity politics and intersectionality on the Left.
Now, there is the question that President Trump did not call out the right-wing groups by name and condemn their existence. Trump, as did his spokespersons, blamed violent behavior on both sides. That’s generally how I feel about something like this. Yet, I would condemn ISIS, as does the President. It seems that the president should publicly condemn the KKK – a different enemy, but one that wants to use force and intimidation. You should condemn groups not of partisan or religious affiliation but because of the tactics they want to use. Consider, however, what the Daily Stormer said (CNN, and NYTimes account), that Trump had given them an out. It’s also relevant that media has reported that many participants from the (alt-right) groups carried pepper spray and tried to use it on counter-demonstraters.
Coercion, from a combative group of any ideology, can become dangerous for almost any individual in a free society, even if by happenstance. Yet, in my mind, there is no honor in being remembered as a victim, something I’ll come back to later. And there is no honor in having one’s live expropriated, possibly because of one’s own questionable karma (regardless of who the enemy is), and being forced into somebody else’s “mass movement”. It seems that sometimes personal neutrality is not good enough.
There are reports on ABC that some people are being fired from jobs today for being identified as participating with the right wing groups.
This is a grave distraction from focus on North Korea.
The recent queasiness in Congress and the FCC about matters like Section 230 and network neutrality bring this question back. Yes, I’ve talked about the controversies over “citizen journalism” before, like the day before the Election on November 8, 2016. And recently (July 19) I encountered a little dispute about access requiring “press credentials”.
The nausea that President Donald Trump says the “media” gives him seems to be directed at mainstream, larger news organizations with center-liberal bias – that is, most big city newspapers, and most broadcast networks, and especially CNN – he calls them all purveyors of “fake news” as if that were smut. More acceptable are the “conservative” Fox and OANN. Breitbart and Milo Yiannopoulos (with his own new site) seem to be in the perpetual twilight of a tidally locked planet. Perhaps I am in the same space; Trump doesn’t seem to have the same antipathy (or hostility) to “independent” or “citizen” journalists (which I had feared he would when he said he didn’t trust computers), but a lot of other people do.
I digress for a moment. Coincidentally has set up his “Trump News Channel” on Facebook (Washington Post story) but the URL for it reverts to “Dropcatch”, with Twitter won’t even allow as a link as supposed spam.
The basic bone politicians and some business people pick with journalists is that “they” spectate, speculate and criticize, but don’t have to play, like right out of the script of the Netflix thriller “Rebirth”. Politicians, hucksters, sales professionals, and perhaps many legitimate business professionals, and heads of families – all of them have accountabilities to real people, whether customers or family members. They have to go to bat for others. They have to manipulate others and concern themselves with the size of their “basis”. Journalists can do this only through double lives.
I could make the analogy to kibitzing a chess game, rather than committing yourself to 5 hours of concentration in rated game. (Yes, in the position below, Black’s sacrifice hasn’t worked.)
But, of course, we know that renowned journalists have paid their dues, most of all in conflict journalism. Sebastian Junger broke his leg working as an arborist before writing “The Perfect Storm”. Bob Woodruff has a plate in his skull but recovered completely after being wounded in Iraq. Military services actually have their own journalists and public affairs. Young American University journalism graduate Trey Yingst helped found News2share before becoming a White House correspondent, but had done assignments in Ukraine, Gaza, Rwanda, Uganda, Ferguson, and was actually pinned down at night during the Baltimore riots in April 2015.
That brings us back to the work of small-fry, like me, where “blogger journalism” has become the second career, pretty much zoning out other possible opportunities which would have required direct salesmanship of “somebody else’s ideas” (“We give you the words”), or much more ability to provide for specific people (maybe students) in directly interpersonal ways.
Besides supporting my books, what I generally do with these blogs is re-report what seem like critical general-interest news stories in order to “connect the dots” among them. Sometimes, I add my own footage and observations when possible, as with a recent visit to fire-damaged Gatlinburg. With demonstrations (against Trump, about climate change, for LGBT) I tend to walk for a while with some of them but mainly film and report (especially when the issue is narrower, such as with Black Lives Matter). I generally don’t venture into dangerous areas (I visited Baltimore Sandtown in 2015 in the day time).
I generally don’t respond to very narrow petitions for emergency opposition to bills that hurt some narrow interest group. What I want to do is encourage real problem solving. Rather than join in “solidarity” to keep Congress from “repealing” Obamacare by itself, I want to focus on the solutions (subsidies, reinsurance, the proper perspective on federalism, etc). But I also want to focus attention on bigger problems, many of them having to do with “shared responsibility” or “herd immunity” concepts, that don’t get very consistent attention from mainstream media (although conservative sites do more on these matters). These include filial responsibility, the tricky business of reducing downstream liability issue on the Web (the Section230 issue, on the previous post, where I said Backpage can make us all stay for detention), risks taken by those offering hosting to immigrants (refugees and asylum seekers), and particularly national security issues like the shifting of risk from asymmetric terror back to rogue states (North Korea), and most of all, infrastructure security, especially our three major electric power grids.
My interest in book self-publication and citizen journalism had started in the 1990s with “gays in the military”, linking back to my own narrative, and then expanded gradually to other issues about “shared risks” as well as more traditional ideas about discrimination. I had come into this “second career” gradually from a more circumscribed world as an individual contributor in mainframe information technology. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” had suddenly become a particularly rich issue in what it could lead to in other areas. So, yes, I personally feel that, even as an older gay man, the LGBTQ world has more to worry about than bathroom bills (Pulse). I think the world we have gotten used to could indeed be dialed back by indignation-born “purification” (as a friend calls it) if we don’t get our act together on some things (like the power grid issue). But I don’t believe we should have to all become doomsday preppers either. We should solve these problems.
A critical component of journalism is objectivity and presentation of Truth, as best Truth can be determined. Call it impartiality. You often hear Trump supporters say that, whatever Trump’s crudeness and ethical problems, what Trump promotes helps them and particularly family members who depend on them. Of course many journalists have families without compromising their work. But this observation seems particularly relevant to me. I don’t have my own children largely because I didn’t engage in the desires or the behaviors than result in having that responsibility. I can “afford” to remain somewhat emotionally aloof from a lot of immediate needs.
In fact, I’ve sometimes had to field the retort from some people that, while some of the news out there may be dire, I don’t need to be the person they hear it from. I could be putting a target on my own back and on others around me. Indeed, some people act as if they believe that everything happens within a context of social hierarchy and coercion.
My own “model” for entering the news world has two aspects that seem to make it vulnerable to future policy choices (like those involving 230 or maybe net neutrality). One of them is that it doesn’t pay its own way. I use money from other sources, both what I earned and invested and somewhat what I inherited (which arguably could be deployed as someone else’s safety net, or which could support dependents, maybe asylum seekers if we had a system more like Canada’s for dealing with that issue). That means, it cannot be underwritten if it had to be insured, for example. I can rebut this argument, or course, by saying, well, what did you want me to do, get paid to write fake news? That could support a family. (No, I really never believed the Comet Ping Pong stuff, but the gunman who did believe it an attack it claimed he was an “independent journalist.” I do wonder how supermarket tabloids have avoided defamation claims even in all the years before the Internet – because nobody believed them? Some people obviously do.) No, they say. we want you to use the background that supported you as a computer programmer for decades and pimp our insurance products. (“We give you the words,” again.) Indeed, my withdrawal from the traditional world where people do things through sales middlemen makes it harder for those who have to sell for a living.
The other aspect is that of subsumed risk. I can take advantage of a permissive climate toward self-distribution of content, which many Internet speakers and small businesses take for granted, but which can be seriously and suddenly undermined by policy, for the “common good” under the ideology of “shared responsibility”. I won’t reiterate here the way someone could try to bargain with me over this personally – that could make an interesting short film experiment. Yes, there can be court challenges, but the issues litigated with CDA and COPA don’t reliably predict how the First Amendment applies when talking about distribution of speech rather than its content, especially with a new literalist like Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
A lot of “Trader Joe” type people would say, there should be some external validation of news before it is published. Of course, that idea feeds the purposes of authoritarian rules, like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, or perhaps Donald Trump. But we could see that kind of environment someday if we don’t watch out.
Last week I went to a small demonstration about the lapsing of network neutrality on the Capitol grounds. After all the speeches, Sen. Markin (D-MA) asked if there were questions, from the press (non-restrictive, I thought). But when I didn’t have a media company employing me (I said I was “independent”) I was “silenced”. Here is my legacy blog account of the incident.
Then, yesterday “it” happened again. I got an email from a PR company about an opportunity to interview a particular transgender activist, who was going to speak in Washington at a meeting of the American Federation of Teachers. I asked if I could just go to the meeting. Apparently, only if I worked for a media company. I got the impression the PR person wouldn’t have offered the interview had he realized I work solo.
In fact, I get a lot of emails asking if I would interview someone. Some, but probably a minority, of them mention the possibility of articles on one of my legacy Blogger sites (like “Bill of GLBT Issues”) which obviously don’t come from a “professional news organization.” Most of these invitations are with persons with very narrowly focused niche issues (sometimes embedded in identity politics), or sometimes very specific products or services to sell (of the “self-help” variety), not of broadband interest, so I usually don’t try to follow up. But what if I got an invitation to talk to someone involved in an issue I view as critical and underreported by the mainstream press, like power grid security?
One of the best links on this issue seems to come from NPPA, “The Voice of Visual Journalists”, which poses the blunt question “How do I obtain press credentials if I do not work for a newspaper or magazine or I am a freelancer?”
There is a US Press Association which appears to offer cards for a membership fee, and I’m not sure how well recognized it is by the industry.
Some videos suggest that “YouTubers” and Bloggers can get press passes for trade shows (like CES) if they are persistent enough.
But many other sources on the Web (for example, WikiHow) suggest that you need to work for someone, and get paid for what you do, at least with a contractual agreement if not an actual employee. It would be a good question if you can work for your own company in this sense. Maybe you would have to register your business with the state you live or work in, or show that it pays its own way with normal accounting.
Of course, it’s obvious that many events have to keep the audience small and limited because of space and security reasons (White House briefings).
On the other hand, many events (such as QA’s for newly released motion pictures at film festivals) are open to the public (buying tickets) and take questions from anyone. Most of the video I present on my parallel “media reviews” blog (older than this one) come from this setup.
There’s a potential dark cloud down the road regarding the issue of press credentials or legitimacy (v. amateurism). Imagine a world a few years from now where all network neutrality has been eliminated, and only the websites of “credentialed” organizations can be connected to ISP’s Sounds like Russia or China, maybe.
On the other hand, Donald Trump has expressed a dislike of mainstream “liberal” media companies (CNN, most of the television broadcast networks, most of the big city newspapers), but respects only outlets like Fox, OANN, and maybe even Breitbart, maybe even Milo. Maybe he actually respects me.
For the record, let me say that I am interested in working with news outlets on some critical issues. I can’t give more details right now.
The New York Times ran an op-ed by Eitan D. Hersh, “Political Hobbyists Are Ruining the Country” in the Review Section Sunday July 2 Online, the title is “The Problem with Participatory Democracy is the Participants”. This sounds like a series of choices on a “My Weekly Reader” reading comprehension test in grade school, “the best title for this story is ..” Oh, that was third grade (1951) when the smartest girl in the class only got 44 out of 60 and poor little Bill got 16. There’s a similar story in the Boston Globe “The Most Dangerous Hobby” by Hersh, inspired by the WB classic film “The Most Dangerous Game” based on a story by Richard Connell. We read and watched that in 2005 when I was substitute teaching, in the middle of an incident caused by my own political hobbying.
So I’m one of the problem hobbyists. OK, when do I “pay my dues” and do my part? I do vote in all elections, including primaries. I have worked as an election judge three times in retirement, although not recently. I do talk to neighbors about elections. They’re both conservative to libertarian.
But I don’t raise money for candidates or issues. I don’t knock on doors. And don’t take orders from party operatives or pressure groups on what it is OK to say in a book, social media, or a blog. And some of the mail I get for partisan contributions (I got one from Donald Trump) is plainly ridiculous. (Back in 1984 I got a very bossy letter from the Dems on how much money I “owed” to help Walter Mondale.)
And I generally don’t respond to urgent pleas to text or call law-makers about very narrow, niche issues. I feel that if I did, that would dilute my effectiveness on when I have something unique to say. Sometimes I do sign online petitions. I think I signed one to free Chelsea Manning, which Obama did.
What’s more significant is that I have never run for public office. I can’t imagine asking people for money. But in 2000 I almost ran as the Libertarian Party candidate for the Senate from Minnesota. Another candidate, a gun enthusiast, would run instead and get himself arrested at Mystic Lake to make a point on the right to bear arms. You see how polarizing this gets.
We don’t encourage the right people to run. If someone like Anderson Cooper were president right now, the country would be just fine, with no scandals. I think Anderson would listen to Lindsey Graham and become hawkish enough on North Korea and ISIS (and Russia).
I don’t join mass movements for revolution right now, although I can never say never. Rather than put all my eggs in some revolutionary idea like single payer, that I know won’t pass, I try to solve problems within the existing system. Like, if you want to allow a barebones health plan for the young and healthy, accept the fact that you have to subsidize the already sick a lot more, and reinsure them, to deal with the anti-selection problem. If we already had single payer, it wouldn’t be controversial or debated – except that we would have to deal with waiting lists and sometimes end-of-life decisions. There is no way to escape the math. Life is not a zero-sum game, but you can’t get something for nothing. E is still M-C-squared. So, yes, I am a conservative. And gay. Welcome to Milo’s world.
The real problem is probably the gratuitous nature of my speech. I report to no one. I try to play devil’s advocate for everything, bring up all possible arguments. I would be more useful, say, working in intelligence, which might have been my career had I grown up in a later, more tolerant or accepting time.
As Milo has pointed out, a lot of times the Left especially (and sometimes the populist alt-right) doesn’t want to allow constructive counter arguments to be made, especially by intelleculoid “Uncle Tom’s” in their midsts. What partisan leadership sees is resurrecting old chestnuts that could be brought back to oppress or marginalize less competitive individuals in their groups. After all, at a certain moral level, almost any goal can be “rationalized”. A good example of this problem has occurred with HIV issues, when public health arguments, while valid (up to a point) can be used as an excuse for stigmatization or exclusion of gay men, a problem we had in the 1980s. Leadership of activist groups want obedience and consistency of messages among supporters, not people who ask (and particularly self-publish) analytic policy questions on their own.
But that is what I do. I want to keep an eye on the big picture, especially civilization -changing threats, not just local issues tied to my own identity groups. That is how I make a difference, in the long run. At least now Maybe not forever.