By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
#SamFrescoe
#SamFrescoe #curated #censorship #fakenews #freespeech
#ideas
I’ve been reading and rereading an article from the New
York Post. The article is an opinion piece, an easy read, and constructed
in a rhetorical style. It does express a biased view, but makes an effort to
support that view and provide a means to locate source information. As opinions
go, it’s not overly mean, nor is it overly kind. However, none of this is why
I’m drawn to review the article. I find myself drawn back to what I believe is
the author’s premise: censorship is a malfunction, not a characteristic quality.
“So What?”
Censorship, by its nature, supposes that restriction,
suppression, and control of information available to the American discourse
represents something that is good. That good is realized through custodians,
guardians, or overseers of information within to the American discourse.
However, given the American culture and its heritage, censorship (especially
hard-censorship) is regarded as an infringing force aligned against the
American discourse. – In other words, if censorship is in, then freedom of
speech is out, and that’s not acceptable.
Getting Started
My intention is to examine some of the issues raised by
Karol Markowicz[1]
(New York Post) in her piece, and Noah Feldman (Bloomberg
View[2])
as cited by Markowicz. Markowicz also cited a piece from The Guardian; however,
I was not able to locate the article. Therefore, the contents of The Guardian article
will not be examined. My goal is to establish a better understanding of
censorship as a concept, how it’s “packaged” in the modern discourse, and what
its adoption may mean for the same.
Background
It’s finally done. The Presidential election is over, the
Electoral College is settled, and the victor is now elevated and the opposition
discarded; and all of this is due to the gross injustice called “fake news”. At
least that’s what the champions of “real news” want us to believe.
To answer the charge, Markowicz seems to put forth two
leading ideas: 1) Citing “fake news” as a root-cause for a Clinton Presidential
loss is ideologically motivated. 2) Media providers that dissent from the prior
are being labeled as “suspect” or objectively false as a rule.
Borrowing from her text, the following issues can be
constructed.
- During
the Presidential election cycle, Trump’s supporters did act in defiance against
many in the media and on the left in violation of their complementary reality
because Trump supporters are “gullible rubes” that consumed “fake news.”
- During
the post Presidential election period, many in the media and on the left did
assign “gullible rube” characterization against Trump supporters because they
desired to explain Trump’s Presidential victory as caused by fake news.
Fake News
What is “fake news”?
Bottom Line Up Front – The foundational question concerning
“fake news” remains unanswered: when does “fake news” transition from being
harmless to being harmful?
It seems there are two common approaches to defining “fake
news”.
- First,
“fake news” is a product produced by fake news websites that deliberately
publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic inflamed by social media
in order to profit from the gullibility of its readers. [3]
- Second,
“fake news” a descriptive label intended to discredit those that create and/or
publish stories that are absolute untruths.
The definitions seem to compare in the following ways.
- Both
associate “fake news” with what is false
- Both
characterize “fake news” to be harmful
- Both
identify “fake news” as representing a deliberate act
- Both
use “fake news” as noun
- Neither
prescribes a social-political direction or leaning
In contrast, there are some important differences.
- The
first is exclusively focused on web-based media; whereas, the second could
apply across all media platforms.
- The
first identifies profiting as the end result; whereas, the second identifies
discrediting.
- The
first blames consumers of “fake news” for being naïve, simple, and
unsophisticated; whereas, the second blames creators and publishers for being
deceitful, dishonorable, and a discredit.
Clearly, “fake news” can be bad; but, what about “fake news”
that is good? After all, there are such things as satire, humor, and
entertainments.
Is “fake news” a problem? – It depends on who you ask.
“The quantity of fake news on
Facebook doesn’t necessarily matter — but the number of people who share it
absolutely does.” – Aja Romano, Vox [4]
“Democracy cannot succeed unless
those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely.” – Franklin
Roosevelt [5]
Arguing something is true simply
because it hasn’t yet been disproven is a logical fallacy. Readers aren’t
waiting for stories to be proven right, they demand to be proven wrong. The
impetus was on the reporter to provide hard evidence and authoritative
confirmation of a story before publishing. (Now,) fake news sites, which spin
innuendo, rumor and conspiracy into digestible, shareable headlines, has
inverted that obligation. – Adam Peck, ThinkProgress.org [6]
Our representative democracy
depends on ordinary people making sound judgments about politicians and policy.
Being able to sort out what matters and what’s a diversion takes knowledge and
judgment. Being a full citizen in a representative democracy depends on
accurate information — and the ability to discern what’s reliable and what’s
not. To fold into that mix deliberately false news makes the citizen’s task
much more difficult — maybe even impossible. [7]
Censorship
Bottom Line Up Front – Hard-censorship has been introduced
to the American discourse as a federal-level “curating function” for
“information flow.” For this “curating function” to take root and flourish, at
least the following understandings must be established and widely accepted.
- With
respect to the primacy of “what is truth” over “what is false”, the marketplace
of ideas, in its current configuration, is flawed and insufficient.
- The
First Amendment, even without a directly associated tort or material damage, is
inherently limited.
- Federally
mandated censorship is acceptable
Markowicz noted that in October 2016, President Obama did
call for a "curating function” against American discourse participants
because of the "wild-wild-west-of-information flow.” Then, she claims that
on 23 Nov 2016, Noah Feldman (Bloomberg View) did advocate for “state”
censorship against the “fake news” marketplace because the “market…can’t
reliably” eliminate “fake news”. Additionally, Markowicz mentioned an article
from The Guardian that advocated for the “need to create a safe space” against
those with “alternative opinions” because of a fear that “…we are unable to
digest unapproved thoughts without becoming a monster.”
“Curating Function”
Starting at the beginning, “curated”
is the past tense of “curate,” a verb. Of course, because verbs are executed by
nouns; therefore, a “curator” is implied. To “curate” means to execute an
action or set of actions that selects, organizes, and looks after a collection
of items. Whereas, a “curator” is an actor that serves as a warden, custodian,
keeper, guardian, or overseer of the “curating.” A “function” is a noun
referring to a purpose, role, job, task, performance, or operation.
Additionally, because the phrase was presented by President Obama, during an
interview couched in the genre of information, and while he was seated as the
President of the United States, it seems reasonable to assume the context is a federal
government program governing information and its movement. Based on this
analysis, a “curating function” could be described as follows.
A “curating function” is a
federally mandated set of actions designed to select, organize, and control a
collection of information and information flows. This function is executed by a
designated and empowered “curator” that serves in the role of a warden,
custodian, keeper, guardian, or overseer of the curating activity.
The Guardian
While the original article was not
located at the time this piece was created, the excerpt leveraged by Markowicz
does offer some insight into “curated” information. By keying on the use of “we,”
the following statement can be constructed. [Those sympathetic to The Guardian point of
view] did need a “safe space” against “alternative opinions” because of fear
that [those sympathetic to The Guardian point of view] are “unable to digest
unapproved thoughts without becoming a monster.” – In my view, simply stated, [those
sympathetic to The Guardian point of view] need hard-censorship because they
are incompetent.
Bloomberg View
It seems clear that Markowicz
assigns negative intent to the Feldman’s views. Given the last sentence of his
opening statement, I can see how a rational person could arrive at that
association. However, because of his use of conditional-statements in that same
opening statement, I can also deduce that Feldman intended to write in an
illustrative way versus a prescriptive way.
Something About the Author – Noah
Feldman is a Bloomberg View columnist. He is a professor of constitutional and
international law at Harvard University, an accomplished author of several
books, and former clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
Feldman introduces the premise
that, because it’s a free market, the free marketplace of ideas (a forum that
promotes the rise of truth over falsehood through debate over time) does not
always work perfectly. Then, he supposes two conditions: 1) given the rise of
“fake news”, a free marketplace of ideas is not sufficient to allow true ideas
to compete with false ideas until those true ideas are victorious. 2) The
marketplace of ideas does not have a mechanism sufficient enough to identify,
counter, and defeat false ideas in favor of true ideas. Therefore, an
acceptable method of correcting the forum is curtailment of false speech. Then,
Feldman offers the following warrant: “False news that hinders public
discussion and encourages irrationality may have a role in the marketplace; but
it doesn’t contribute to the good functioning of democracy.”
In turn, Feldman broaches the
following issues for consideration.
- The
rise of “fake news” poses a serious challenge to the First Amendment.
- “The
classic solution to market failure is regulation.” “The question is whether
government regulation of fake news would be justified and lawful to fix this market
failure.”
- How
would any regulator “separate opinion from fact on a systematic basis”?
- Feldman
cites the 1919 Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States, which argued that
even “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in
falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” This argument later
became a free speech doctrine that the question in every case is whether the
words "create a clear and present danger.”
- Then,
Feldman offers a counter by Justice Louis Brandeis from the 1919 Supreme Court
case, Schenck v. United States, in which Brandeis states “that public
discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle
of the American government.” Meaning “the function of speech is to free men from
the bondage of irrational fears.”
Hard-Censorship
Hard-censorship in America commonly
represents a restriction, suppression, or controlling of how information is
communicated. However, sense the 1919 Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United
States, rulings on the matter of free speech, when the speech in question is
not directly linked to a tort or material damage, have been to the speaker
without exception (dare I say). This is not to say that censorship has never
shown itself in America. To argue that point of view is a fruitless venture, a
non-starter. However, to argue that forms of soft-censorship (safe spaces,
political correctness, the pronoun debate, privilege, redefining isms, etc.) remain
in common practice today, would likely fill volumes of stacks (perhaps whole
libraries) across the United States and elsewhere.
Facing the Facets – A Framework for Reason
In my view, the subject of censorship is of critical
importance to the American discourse and the protection of two basic American freedoms:
freedom of speech, and freedom of the Press. So, how could someone get their
head around this stuff?
I concede that there is no one “best” way to grapple with
the full breadth and depth of the topics mentioned. I’m willing to bet that if
I were to ask a dozen random people how they would go about such a task I would
get at least a dozen unique answers. So, for the sake of discussion, I will
offer my own “best” way. My hope in sharing is that you will discover, enhance,
or further solidify your “best” way.
What follows after my sign-off is a series of principled statements
and questions. Statements and questions are grouped under descriptive headings.
Each heading represents a facet of (an approach to) the ideas and concepts of
this discussion. I hope you accept my invitation to grapple with the subject,
or a portion thereof; and then, tell share your thoughts and conclusions.
Thank you. – Sam Frescoe
An Invitation – Present Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are
important to me. I invite you to consider sharing your answers to any, or all,
of the statements or questions below in a comment section or using an e-mail to
samfrescoe@gmail.com.
American Freedom
Can it be assumed that individual citizens are capable of
governing themselves?
“American freedom rest on the
assumption that individuals can govern themselves.” – Dr. Mickey Craig,
Hillsdale College, Professor of Politics, December 2016
The Constitution
In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers,
and to best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution, these restrictive
amendments were added.[8]
-
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
of speech.[9]
-
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom
the press. [10]
Governance vs Government
Given the discussion, which statement best represents what
you want concerning your relationship with the government?
-
The First Amendment is a foundation, which
constrains the government, which serves the citizens and protects American
freedoms.
-
The political class uses government functions
and institutions to enlarge and entrench their designs, viewing citizens only
as a means to an end, resulting in diminished individual rights and freedoms.
American Heritage & Human Nature
“There are again two methods of removing the causes of
faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its
existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same
passions, and the same interests. It could never be more truly said than of the
first remedy that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air
is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be
a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life…The
second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as
the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it,
different opinions will be formed.” – James Madison, Federalist # 10
American Heritage & Purpose of Government
“The principal purposes to be answered by union are these
the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as
well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of
commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our
intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.” – Alexander
Hamilton, Federalist # 23
Examine Behavior
Assuming the call to hard-censorship represents a
social-political movement, then that movement is likely to present itself as:
-
A radical change affecting everyone leading to a
revolutionary movement.
-
A rejection of free speech, coupled with
rejection of a free marketplace of ideas, resulting in a form of retreatism.
Stages of Development: Emerging (political correctness) à
Coalescing (safe spaces, supremacy) à Bureaucratize (Executive actions, Legislative
actions)
Rules of Political Interaction
-
Recasting “isms” – An “ism” is an oppressive
doctrine in which prejudice is coupled with power/authority.
-
Social-Political Conflict – When a high degree
of diversity is forced into close proximity against its will, then there will
be conflict.
Test for False Logic
-
Just because an actor could do something, does
NOT mean that the actor actually did that something.
-
Emotional Appeal: Persuade the heart, not the
head, to force or pity or popularity or tradition
-
Single Cause: Assume a single cause for an
outcome
Estimating Government Reach
Accountability
-
Where in the Constitution does it authorize
regulation of speech or “fake news”?
-
How does censorship uphold an oath of office as
a Legislator or Executive?
-
If adopted, then how will the (Legislative or
Executive actors) experience a loss or will be politically, socially,
financially, or otherwise harmed?
-
Explain why the need of the Government to regulate
information supersedes the need of the Individual to do for him/herself as they
see fit.
-
How might you change your mind if you become the
victim of censorship?
Justification
-
How can a handful of Legislators and Executives be
better equipped to address the problem than 308 million people dealing with
things, successfully day-to-day?
-
Why is the answer to a failed media campaign
designed to influence a Presidential election, a policy to further curtail the
media itself?
Morality
-
If you are willing to curtail me, then are you
willing to let me curtail you?
-
If you don't care about my speech, then why
should I care about yours?
-
If you don't care about my liberty, then why
should I care about yours?
Necessity of Government Involvement
-
Do you want to grant government a monopoly stake
in the marketplace of ideas when they already have the monopoly over the use of
lethal force?
Performance Guarantee
-
“There is no more stupid or more dangerous way
of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong,” Thomas Sowell.
-
What constitutes success? Who makes the decisions? What decisions are to be made and when? Who has the monopoly of values? Who feels
pain should the results of a decision be wrong?
Political Philosophy
Conservatism
-
Ideal: Seek compromise that mitigates the
fundamental flaws of being human.
-
Rebuttal: Conservatism is an ideology of looking
to the past, and is descending.
Liberalism
-
Assumes the problem (“fake news”) is too complex
for self-rule; therefore, government must be imposed on behalf of the oppressed
or otherwise afflicted.
Progressivism
-
Ideal: If we fix the institutions, then we fix
the people.
-
Rebuttal: Their philosophy is damaging by its
nature because it amounts to a failure of thought. (Meaning a failure to
recognize and accept an unchanging human nature.)
Regressivism
-
Ideal: Government does not have natural limits.
-
Rebuttal: Regressive subscribe violence in the
name of ideals, unjustified self-esteem, and hypersensitivity. The combined
effect is a social-political vacuum, it’s that vacuum that allows the
rise/recognition of extremists.
Primacy
Realities
-
That which is “good” versus that which is “evil”
Individual vs Collective
-
Individual: Is the proponent of censorship more
interested in individual freedom or collective power?
-
Collective: Does the proposal amount to
government permitting, promoting, or preventing something by controlling
someone? – If yes, the collective focused.
Subjective vs Objective
-
Objectivity seeks truth for the sake of truth
without regard to being correct/incorrect.
-
Subjectivity seeks what is right for the sake of
being righteous.
Leftist vs Rightist
-
Left: Equal Outcome is the only value. Inequality
equates to injustice. However, all can be made right by government.
-
Right: Equal opportunity. People are flawed but
capable of great good. There are consequences for individual actions.
Opportunity vs Outcome
-
Opportunity: Fairness is equal opportunity to
act, not equality of outcome irrespective of an act. Freedom of choice.
Acceptance of natural consequences of that choice.
-
Outcome: Fairness means that you are free to
choose to conform or not conform and receive the mandated results regardless of
your decision.
© 2016 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
[1] Karol
Markowicz (The New York Post). “The War on 'Fake News' Is All About Censoring
Real News”. Fox News, Politics, 5 Dec 2016
[2] Noah
Feldman. “Fake News May Not be Protected Speech”. Bloomberg View. 23 Nov 2016
[4] http://www.vox.com/2016/11/16/13626318/viral-fake-news-on-facebook 16 Nov 2016, (accessed 161221)
[5] “Why
fake news is dangerous”. Bladen Journal, Opinion. http://bladenjournal.com/opinion/9827/why-fake-news-is-dangerous
(accessed 161221)
[6] Adam
Peck. “The most dangerous thing about fake news sites is not what they say, but
how they say it”. ThinkProgress.org. https://thinkprogress.org/the-most-dangerous-thing-about-fake-news-sites-is-not-what-they-say-but-how-they-say-it-f7bd89501028#.tt0a3vszz
(accessed 161221)
[7] “Why
fake news is dangerous”. Bladen Journal, Opinion. http://bladenjournal.com/opinion/9827/why-fake-news-is-dangerous
(accessed 161221)
[8] Bill of
Rights, Preamble, paragraph 1
[9] Bill of
Rights, First Amendment, Second Clause
[10] Bill of
Rights, First Amendment, Second Clause
No comments:
Post a Comment