Tag Archives: free speech

The Problem with this Kind of Law Suit

Posted on by
Reply

The State of Michigan, through its Attorney General and Department of Civil Rights, has decided to use the Southern Poverty Law Center’s claimed identifications of “hate groups” to spearhead those two agencies’ pretended protection of Michigan citizens from the ravages of hatred.

One of the targets of the State’s AG and MDCR, selected from the SPLC’s smear lists, is the American Freedom Law Center, an Evil Judeo-Christian law firm.  Far from being cowed, the law firm is pushing back, in spades: they’ve filed suit against Dana Nessel, the AG, and Agustin Arbulu, the MSCR’s Executive Director.  Robert Muise, AFLC’s Co-Founder and Senior Counsel:

It’s one thing for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a private organization, to engage in political propaganda and political hyperbole.  [It’s a violation of the Constitution] when you have the Attorney General who’s relying on that political propaganda to investigate and target us with the power of the state.
You now have the government giving its endorsement to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s nonsense—that now triggers our constitutional protections[.]

The AFLC is bringing three charges to their suit:

violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment; violation of expressive association rights under the First Amendment; and violation of equal protection as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here’s a bit of the central evidence against Nessel and Arbulu according to the AFLC’s suit:

According to the SPLC report relied upon by Defendants, Plaintiff [AFLC] is identified as a “hate” group because it is allegedly “anti-Muslim,” and according to SPLC’s “Hate Map,” Plaintiff is located in the Ann Arbor area. Consequently, Plaintiff is one of the very groups that Defendants referred to in their public announcement as an “extremist and hate organization in Michigan.”

The AFLC also alleges in its suit that Nessel’s and Arbulu’s goal is to legitimize the SPLC’s own hatred of those disagreeing with them, to

create in the collective mind of the public that organizations designated by SPLC as “hate” groups are criminal organizations rather than legitimate charitable organizations.

And so on.  RTWT.

Trouble is, though, even if the AFLC wins its suit—which ultimately it should, based on published information—nothing serious will change.  Nessel and Arbulu still will be in place, and they’ll still pursue their anti-freedom policies.  They’ll just be doing it sub rosa.  These two persons and their senior staffs have to go.  That’s the only way there can be any hope that the policies they’ve put in place overtly can be believed to be beginning to be prevented from continuing covertly.

Sexism Blocking Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Now it’s Twitter that’s engaging in toxic (non)-speech, not the speech in the tweets themselves.

A Canadian blogger is having to sue Twitter over the latter’s blatant censorship of free speech because, apparently, she isn’t toeing the Twitter (or me also “movement”) sexual politics line.

Meghan Murphy, the founder of the blog Feminist Current, was locked out of her account last year when the company asked her to delete a tweet that said, “Men aren’t women,” CNET reported, citing the lawsuit. A second tweet said, “How are transwomen not men?” according to the suit.

This is evil?

Facebook’s Secret Rule Book

Posted on by
2

Facebook has written a massive, byzantine, and secret document of rules packed with spreadsheets and power point slides to help it censor the news posted tackle misinformation posted to its facility.

Even the New York Times gets it, at least to an extent.

The closely held rules are extensive, and they make the company a far more powerful arbiter of global speech than has been publicly recognized or acknowledged by the company itself[.]

It’s also internally inconsistent.

The [NYT] discovered a range of gaps, biases and outright errors—including instances where Facebook allowed extremism to spread in some counties while censoring mainstream speech in others.

Are these deliberate?  It’s hard to believe the smartest kids, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, their management team, wouldn’t be doing this deliberately.  But it’s also hard to discern the logic of their inconsistencies in their rulebook, too.

Inconsistencies like

outsource[ing …] content moderation to other companies that tend to hire unskilled workers…. The 7,500-plus moderators “have mere seconds to recall countless rules and apply them to the hundreds of posts that dash across their screens each day. When is a reference to ‘jihad,’ for example, forbidden? When is a ‘crying laughter’ emoji a warning sign?”

Sara Su, a senior engineer on Facebook’s News Feed:

It’s not our place to correct people’s speech, but we do want to enforce our community standards on our platform. When you’re in our community, we want to make sure that we’re balancing freedom of expression and safety.

Facebook’s definition of “balance.”  Facebook’s definition of “freedom of expression.”  Facebook’s definition of “safety.”  And so Facebook, appropriately, does not try to correct speech.  Instead, it openly bans speech of which it—Zuckerberg and Sandberg—personally disapprove.  And so it bars some individuals altogether, it blocks some Presidential tweets, it blocks administration immigration advertisements.

An this, from Monika Bickert, Facebook’s global policy management honcho:

We have billions of posts every day, we’re identifying more and more potential violations using our technical systems.  At that scale, even if you’re 99% accurate, you’re going to have a lot of mistakes.

This is utterly disingenuous; it shows that Facebook isn’t even trying.  Not in a world where car makers and other manufacturers have, for years, demanded and achieved six-sigma accuracy.  Can’t reach six-sigma accuracy in speech censorship?  Not yet, perhaps.  But a serious effort would achieve better than 99%.  Or–work with me on this; it’s a concept still under development–maybe Facebook should stop censoring altogether.

Or: Facebook already is achieving that greater accuracy—it does, after all, succeed in censoring speech from the right side of center.  It hides its evident bias, though, behind an internally inconsistent, multi-thousand-page rule book.  Maybe that’s the logic to the inconsistencies.

And maybe that’s why they wanted to keep their rulebook secret.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

Alphabet’s Google CEO, Sundar Pichai, testified before the House Judiciary Committee last Tuesday, and he declined to justify his company’s decision to use the Southern Poverty Law Center as what the company calls a “trusted flagger,” a facility whereby these Trusted Ones can identify speech of which they personally disapprove as hate speech and thereby have it censored from Google’s products.  Pichai also was unable to explain why Google predominantly censored Conservative speech.  This prompted Congressman Louie Gohmert (R, TX) to take official notice of Pichai’s own bias.

You’re so surrounded by liberality that hates conservatism, hates people that really love our Constitution and the freedom it’s afforded people like you, that you don’t even recognize it.  It’s like a blind man not even knowing what light looks like, because you’re surrounded by darkness.

Sadly, the same can be said of Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey and his management team and of Facebook’s Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg; Director, Ads, Business Integrity Rob Leathern; and the rest of Zuckerberg’s management team, as well.

PC Police-ism

Posted on by
Reply

In re the matter of Professor Richard Ned Lebow, of King’s College London, and Professor Simona Sharoni, of Merrimack College and a member of the International Studies Association, the ISA’s Executive Committee has spoken.

I demur from the ISA’s politically correct (if ever there were an oxymoron, here is one) position, in particular their Item 7.

7) … Although you explained that your comment was intended as a joking reference to an old, cultural trope, your email was not apologetic and PRR (and eventually ExComm) found that it was marginalizing and trivializing Prof. Sharoni’s reaction to your comment and that it was an attempt to intimidate her….

It was, in fact, a joke–funny or not depending on the audience, but clearly a joke, nonetheless.  Indeed, I didn’t think it that funny, if only because it’s so old and used up.

Accordingly,

  1. no apology was warranted
  2. Sharoni’s manufactured overreaction deserved marginalization and trivialization
  3. There was no attempt to intimidate, and if Sharoni claimed she was, she either is a fragile snowflake of breathtaking dimension, or she carefully manufactured that response as well.