Another Word For It Patrick Durusau on Topic Maps and Semantic Diversity

If The A.C.L.U. Needs to Rethink Free Speech by K-Sue Parkaug were an exercise in legal logic, Parkaug would get an F.

These paragraphs capture Pakkaug’s argument:

…
After the A.C.L.U. was excoriated for its stance, it responded that “preventing the government from controlling speech is absolutely necessary to the promotion of equality.” Of course that’s true. The hope is that by successfully defending hate groups, its legal victories will fortify free-speech rights across the board: A rising tide lifts all boats, as it goes.

While admirable in theory, this approach implies that the country is on a level playing field, that at some point it overcame its history of racial discrimination to achieve a real democracy, the cornerstone of which is freedom of expression.

I volunteered with the A.C.L.U. as a law student in 2011, and I respect much of its work. But it should rethink how it understands free speech. By insisting on a narrow reading of the First Amendment, the organization provides free legal support to hate-based causes. More troubling, the legal gains on which the A.C.L.U. rests its colorblind logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.

For marginalized communities, the power of expression is impoverished for reasons that have little to do with the First Amendment. Numerous other factors in the public sphere chill their voices but amplify others.
…

Without doubt, the government, American society in general and the legal system in particular is not race, gender, class or in any other meaningful sense, blind. Marginalized communities bear the brunt of that lack of blindness.

If the legal system deprives those with privilege and power of free speech, what does logic and experience dictate will be the impact on marginalized communities?

Are you expecting a different free speech result for the marginalized from courts that discriminate against them?

If yes, call your mother to say your failure at legal logic is putting the marginalized in harm’s way. (post her reaction)

Ds. Martin Niemöller neemt deel aan oecumenische samenkomst in de Grote Kert te Den Haag. Vlnr [Vrnl in spiegelbeeld!] . Ds M.N. W. Smitvoors (van de Haagse Oecumenische Raad), ds. Niemöller en prof. P. Kaetske, predikant van de Duitse Evangelische gemeente in Den Haag
*27 mei 1952

An updated version of Martin Niemöller‘s First they came … for censors:

First they censored pornographers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a pornographer.

Then they censored terrorists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a terrorist.

Then they censored “hate speech,” and I did not speak out—
Because I don’t use “hate speech.”

Then they censored Nazis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Nazi.

Then they censored the KKK, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a member of the KKK.

Then they censored the alt-Right, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a member of the alt-Right.

…

Then they censored the environmentalists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an environmentalist.

Then they censored the feminists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a feminist.

Then they censored #BlackLivesMatter, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Black.

…

Then they censored me—and no one was able to speak for me.

Feel free to add to or re-order “Then they censored…” lines based on your own priorities and experience.

For a defense of free speech, consider the 1934 ACLU pamphlet entitled: “Shall We Defend Free Speech for Nazis in America?“:

…
To those who advocate suppressing propaganda they hate, we ask—where do you draw the line? They can answer only in the terms of revoluntionists—at our political enemies. But experience shows that “political enemies” is a broad term, and has covered the breaking up even of working class meetings by rival working class organizations. It illustrates the danger, and the impracticality of making any distinctions in defending rights sought by all.

To those who urge suppression of meetings that may incite riot or violence, the complete answer is that nobody can tell in advance what meetings may do so. Where there is reasonable ground for apprehension, the police can ordinarily prevent disorder.

To those who would suppress meetings where race or religious hatred is likely to be stirred up, the answer is simple,—that there is no general agreement on what constitutes race or religious prejudice. Once the bars are so let down, the field is open for all-comers to charge such prejudice against any propagandists, — Communists, Socialists, atheists,—even Jews attacking the Nazis. On that ground the Union has opposed the anti-Nazi bills introduced in the New York and New Jersey legislatures punishing propaganda which “stirs up race or religious hatred” or “domestic strife”. No laws can be written to outlaw Nazi propaganda without striking at freedom of speech in general.

Further, we point out the inevitable effect of making martyrs by persecution. Persecute the Nazis, drive them underground, imitate their methods in Germany—and attract to them hundreds of sympathizers with the persecuted who would otherwise be indifferent. The best way to combat their propaganda is in the open where it can be fought by counter-propaganda, protest demonstrations, picketing—and all the devices of attack which do not involve denying their rights to meet and speak.
…

Authored 84 years ago, the ACLU position on free speech is remarkably relevant today.

“[S]tirs up race or religious hatred” sounds a lot like “hate speech.”

Propaganda to suppress equals “political enemies.”

Political enemies today include the alt-right, Nazis, white supremacists, feminists, #Blacklivesmatter, and others, depending upon your personnel perspective.

Three of the world’s largest censors, Google, Facebook and Twitter, pout that freedom of speech doesn’t apply to them as non-governments.

True enough but their censorship spans governments, creating an even greater denial of the basic right to be heard.

If censorship is the question, none is the answer.

I cannot claim credit for finding the 1934 ACLU pamphlet. See: Fee Speech or Hate Speech? Civil Liberties Body ACLU Will No Longer Defend Gun-Carrying Protest Groups by Josh Lowe.

Yes, the ACLU is retreating from a long and honorable history of defending the First Amendment. (I won’t speculate on their motivations.)

Hartsfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta, GA, is the hub of sex trafficking in the United States.

FBI reports that Atlanta is the center for the sex-trafficking of adolescence and around 200 to 300 youth are prostituted in Atlanta a month. (At world’s busiest airport, sex trafficking abounds)

With an average of 20 to 30 youths prostituted a day in Atlanta, some members of Congress want to address sex trafficking by censoring the Internet.

Elliot Harmon in Internet Censorship Bill Would Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation, puts it this way:

There’s a new bill in Congress that would threaten your right to free expression online. If that weren’t enough, it could also put small Internet businesses in danger of catastrophic litigation.

Don’t let its name fool you: the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693) wouldn’t help punish sex traffickers. What the bill would do (PDF) is expose any person, organization, platform, or business that hosts third-party content on the Internet to the risk of overwhelming criminal and civil liability if sex traffickers use their services. For small Internet businesses, that could be fatal: with the possibility of devastating litigation costs hanging over their heads, we think that many entrepreneurs and investors will be deterred from building new businesses online.

Make no mistake: sex trafficking is a real, horrible problem. This bill is not the way to address it. Lawmakers should think twice before passing a disastrous law and endangering free expression and innovation.
…

Rather than focusing on a known location for sex trafficking, Congress is putting “…small Internet businesses…” in harm’s way.

The large content providers, Facebook, Google, Twitter, already have the financial and technical resources to meet the demands of SESTA. So in a very real sense, SESTA isn’t anti-sex trafficking but rather anti-small Internet business, in addition to being a threat to free speech.

Call your member of the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate, asking for their vote against Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693).

SESTA:

1. Endangers free speech
2. Favors large content providers over small ones
3. Ignores known sex trafficking locations
4. Is a non-solution to a known problem

Sex trafficking is a serious problem that needs a workable solution. Not an ineffectual, cosmetic non-solution that favors large content providers over smaller ones.