Tag Archives: free speech

Pick One

Posted on by
Reply

In an article regarding Europe’s censors’ efforts to govern and limit American speech, Nathan Harden, RealClearEducation Editor, warned about AI packages embedding invisible and supposedly unremovable watermarks in writing (and eventually in imagery and recordings of speech, also) so that those censors can identify and block speech of which they personally disapprove. In the course of that, the author wrote this about Anthropic AI-generated watermarks in particular.

The marking technology subtly biases words the model picks, in a pattern Anthropic controls via a secret key. The watermark survives ordinary copy and paste, and there is no way to opt out. Anthropic says the mark carries no information that could identify a user and won’t affect the overall meaning of the text.

It isn’t possible to subtly bias words in a text without the overall meaning of that text being so influenced. Surely Anthropic’s managers understand this.

Harden then asked the critical question:

Americans should be asking a more fundamental question: Why is European law dictating how an American company produces words for Americans?

The answer is because [Anthropic’s] managers are all too willing to surrender to Europe’s censors in order preserve their precious presence there and not willing enough, if at all, to spend that energy preserving the freedoms of the nation that nurtured them and provided them the environment in which they grew and now prosper.

How, then, can [Anthropic] or its products be trusted in America or anywhere else?

Chilling Effects

Posted on by
Reply

Who’s doing the chilling, though?

The FCC has opened an early review of the broadcast licenses of eight of ABC‘s broadcast stations, and ABC has sued to put a stop to it. The FCC says the review is over ABC‘s—in particular, Disney’s—use of DEI initiatives to determine whether they violated the agency’s prohibition on unlawful discrimination. ABC‘s executives claim the review is based on President Donald Trump’s (R) dislike of two program’s anti-Trump coverage.

There’s this, though, that exposes the underlying problem regardless of those competing motives.

In its filing, ABC said the FCC’s actions are already influencing editorial decisions and having a chilling effect on its news operations.

If the executives think the government’s move really is about suppressing ABC speech, any supposed speech chilling is not from anything the government is doing. These executives are preemptively chilling their own speech. If they had the courage of their convictions, they would press ahead with their editorial decisions unchanged. By chilling—altering—their decision making, they could be seen to be tacitly admitting that the FCC’s review is justified—especially since the review is only just getting started and no evidence has yet been collected.

Hate Speech According to Leftists

Posted on by
Reply

The latest example is provided by the Portland, Oregon, Portland Public Schools school district. The district has banned a mother

from her children’s school for a year because she engaged in sidewalk advocacy against its secret gender curriculum and social transitions of gender-confused students, claiming her “hate speech” violated its harassment policy….

That ban included preventing her from witnessing her son’s graduation from Meriwether Lewis Elementary School. Her daughter remains at risk of the school’s indoctrination program, a program of which the school district is so embarrassed, I surmise, that it felt constrained to keep it hidden away from concerned parents.

Regardless of the district’s apparent embarrassment over its program, or its dishonest desire to keep its treatment of the parents’ children from them, it has made its attitude toward speech very clear with the ban and its claimed reason for it.

Hate speech, according to the district, is any speech that disagrees with its Leftist ideology. Contra the Just the News characterization of the school district’s position, though, this attitude—toward free speech and toward transgender abuse of children—isn’t far-left; it’s increasingly becoming mainstream Left.

It’s Broader than That

Posted on by
Reply

Dominic Green, in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal‘s Free Expression, wrote of the German government’s attempt to censor—to bar from public viewing—a movie that was, by most accounts, badly done schlock (Green’s term). The rationale was that the movie depicted unrepentant and graphic violence by German vigilantes against Germany’s “immigrants,” the illegal aliens present in that nation.

German regulators’ problem with Citizen Vigilante wasn’t its depiction of unspeakable acts, but their unmentionable perpetrators. For years, European governments did their best to deny that mass immigration, notably from majority-Muslim societies, correlated to documented rises in the number of sexual crimes, especially gang rape.

Green closed his piece with this:

We like to think of the arts as our conscience, pushing social problems to our attention. If Europeans must rely on cinéastes of Mr Boll’s caliber to depict Europe’s current problems, it’s because no one else wants to admit their nature and extent.
Mr Boll has illuminated the crisis of political legitimacy and social order that is rapidly unraveling Europe’s peace. His film was censored to keep the peace. That shows the severity of the continent’s crisis, and the fragility of Europe’s peace.

It’s broader in scope than that, though. Government censorship, of nearly anything in any milieu, is a clear and dispositive sign of the intellectual bankruptcy, arrogance of Knowing Better, of cowardice of the politicians and bureaucrats who inflict it. Even the (legitimate) censor of slander is after the fact, not preemptive.

If the citizenry cannot speak freely, they cannot be free. It’s on those citizens in their aggregate—We the People as we put it in the opening phrase of our Constitution—not just individual makers of bad movies or one-off rich idealists, to change out those politicians who would limit our speech.

Equal Time is Obsolete

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim of Thomas Hazlett, an economics prof at Clemson University and chief economist at the FCC late century, in his Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Critics say it has outlived its usefulness, as today’s media landscape offers a cornucopia of platforms unknown in 1920s America. The critics are right, except for one thing: The rule has never been useful and has always functioned mostly to suppress coverage for challengers.

On the contrary, the media routinely suppresses coverage, not just for challenger politicians in general, but for politicians on the right side of American politics, whether candidate or incumbent—and not just in politics: media routinely suppresses coverage of much of the discourse, on any subject, from the right.

We have The New York Times announcing around the time Donald Trump was campaigning in 2016 that there no longer could be balanced news reporting; news writers must take (the Left) side.

We have broadcast network anchors announcing that there are not two sides to arguments, in many cases there is only one side—and news anchors Know Better what that correct side is.

We have major newspapers announcing that they will no longer publish letters to their editors that dispute man-caused climate warming; that science is, those editors pronounced, settled.

We have media in general spiking stories that disputed the Russia hoax and the reality of the Hunter Biden laptop.

We have social media actively censoring posts from the right, even canceling the social media accounts of Conservative Presidential candidates and a variety of other accounts containing postings of information from the right.

Hazlett added this claim:

“Equal time” requirements tax free speech and turn debates into media circuses. The networks won’t broadcast them, and major-party candidates boycott them.

This is risible on its face. The former is the “media’s” decision, and their decision to not broadcast the debates is an obvious argument for the equal time law. The latter is a politician’s decision and is wholly irrelevant to the question of equal time legitimacy. Equal time requires outlets to offer equal time to all candidates; it does not require all candidates to participate.

The Radio Act of 1927 might need tweaking to bring it into the 21st century, but its principle—equal time for political candidates—remains highly useful.