Tag Archives: #FreedomOfSpeech

Posted on by

For print newspapers, tempus is fugiting The solution to being 18th century technology is not becoming 19th century one-party newspapers!

Mickey East, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky during the 1970s, when I was a student there, used a bastardized phrase to encourage his students to get their work done, “Tempus is fugiting.”

According to Wikipedia, the expression “Tempus fugit” comes from line 284 of book 3 of Virgil‘s Georgics, where it appears as fugit inreparabile tempus: “it escapes, irretrievable time”.

Well, time flies for newspapers, which I have previously called 18th century technology, because people are abandoning printed materials.

U.S. newspapers continuing to die at rate of 2 each week

Despite a growing recognition of the problem, the United States continues to see newspapers die at the rate of two per week, according to a report issued Wednesday on the state of local news.

by David Bauder, Associated Press | Friday, July 1, 2022 | 10:26 AM EDT

NEW YORK — Despite a growing recognition of the problem, the United States continues to see newspapers die at the rate of two per week, according to a report issued Wednesday on the state of local news.

“A growing recognition of the problem,” huh? The problem is that time has flown by, and technology has overtaken the print medium. Yes, I subscribe to newspapers, The Wall Street Journal, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Lexington Herald-Leader, for my use as source material for my poor site. As I have previously mentioned, my hearing is seriously compromised, and I can read the news far more easily than I can watch and hear the news on television. More, when reading the news, if there’s something which was poorly worded or unclear, or that I somehow missed, I can go back to reread that portion, to lock it down correctly. To me, especially as a (poor) writer, trying to ascertain that I am getting things correctly, that’s important.

But, let’s face it: my subscriptions to those newspapers, and all the рублей I am spending — The Wall Street Journal in particular is not cheap, and though this site has changed, I had originally planned to concentrate more on economics — are all digital; I not only don’t get the print editions, but out in the rural area in which I live, I cannot get home delivery of the dead trees edition. Heck, I can’t even get the United States Post Office to deliver the mail to me, so I have to rent a post office box!

However, it’s more than that. Before I retired, I used to pick up a copy of the Inquirer from the Turkey Hill in Jim Thorpe, to take to the plant. The guys combitched[1]The word “combitch” is a Picoism, for which I would bet you can figure out the etymology. Feel free to use it yourselves, with an appropriate credit appreciated. that I should have picked up the Allentown Morning Call instead, because that was closer to local news, but it was, and is, a junk paper. Now that it’s been bought out by the hedge fund, Alden Global Capital, I’m pleased that I didn’t spend much money at all on the Morning Call.

Amusingly enough, for an owner of dead trees newspapers, Alden’s website opens up to an image of trees!

One of the issues with buying the Inquirer for the plant was that there were frequently sports stories which noted that ‘this game ended too late for inclusion in this edition.’ In the 21st century, we can always get our news up-to-date, by checking that internet thingy that Al Gore invented. And that illustrates the major problem for print newspapers: they are always several hours behind, in a world in which the news is reported minute-by-minute. I have no idea whether the Associated Press story referenced above will appear in the print edition of the Inquirer, from which I sourced it, but time stamped at 10:26 AM as it was, it cannot appear earlier than Saturday’s dead trees edition!

Areas of the country that find themselves without a reliable source of local news tend to be poorer, older and less educated than those covered well, Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, Media and Integrated Marketing Communications said.

The country had 6,377 newspapers at the end of May, down from 8,891 in 2005, the report said. While the pandemic didn’t quite cause the reckoning that some in the industry feared, 360 newspapers have shut down since the end of 2019, all but 24 of them weeklies serving small communities.

Actually, even out in the sticks, we have not one but two local weekly newspapers, the Citizen’s Voice & Times and the Estill County Tribune, but who can know how long they’ll both survive?

An estimated 75,000 journalists worked in newspapers in 2006, and now that’s down to 31,000, Northwestern said. Annual newspaper revenue slipped from $50 billion to $21 billion in the same period.

Even though philanthropists and politicians have been paying more attention to the issue, the factors that drove the collapse of the industry’s advertising model haven’t changed. Encouraging growth in the digital-only news sector in recent years hasn’t been enough to compensate for the overall trends, said Penelope Muse Abernathy, visiting professor at Medill and the report’s principal author.

As I have previously reported, The Philadelphia Inquirer, our nation’s third oldest continuously published daily newspaper, and 17th largest newspaper as measured by circulation, still thinks that the taxpayers should be taxed to support journalists, to the tune of a refundable payroll tax credit of up to $25,000 per journalist to help local news organizations hire and retain reporters and editors.

In other words, the publishers of the Inquirer believe that the taxpayers ought to pay up to $25,000 of the salary of reporters and editors! Does ABC News or CNN have to beg for the taxpayers to subsidize their journolists'[2]This was not a typographical error. The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure … Continue reading salaries?

True “daily” newspapers that are printed and distributed seven days a week are also dwindling; The report said 40 of the largest 100 newspapers in the country publish only-digital versions at least once a week. Inflation is likely to hasten a switch away from printed editions, said Tim Franklin, director of the Medill Local News Initiative.

One of the newspapers to which I subscribe, the Lexington Herald-Leader, does not publish a Saturday edition, and what I see online on Saturdays makes it look like the reporters and editors are pretty much off on Saturdays.

But there’s more to it. When I look at the digital editions of the Herald-Leader and the Inquirer, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization it has become obvious: if those were your only sources of news, you’d not be blamed for thinking that six Supreme Court Justices are the only people in America who don’t support an unlimited abortion license. These newspapers have been wholly one-sided in their reporting on the subject.

What my, sadly late, best friend used to call the Lexington Herald-Liberal just published a fairly long story on the disappearance of Democratic voters in eastern Kentucky. You’d have to be a Kentuckian to really understand it, but it points out the problem for the newspaper: a paper which used to circulate widely throughout the counties east of Lexington — and I delivered the morning Lexington Herald and afternoon Lexington Leader in Mt Sterling, two counties away from Lexington, when I was in junior high and high schools — has few subscribers now, because there is little or no local delivery, but also because the newspaper has become so thoroughly urbanized to the city that it really has nothing for the more conservative counties to the east. As we have previously reported, the newspaper has consistently endorsed the candidates, all Democrats, strongly rejected by the voters in every county of their (former?) service area other than Fayette. If you don’t give something for the readers in the outlying counties, can you really expect to have many subscribers there?

In Pennsylvania, the Inquirer is steadfastly liberal and Democratic in orientation, publishing all sorts of OpEds and barely-disguised opinion pieces camouflages as regular news articles slamming Republicans and conservatives, yet, while Joe Biden carried the Keystone State by 80,555 votes in 2020, that was only due to his 471,050 vote margin in Philadelphia; absent Philadelphia County, President Trump had a margin of 389,495 votes. Much of Pennsylvania was strongly “red” and even Philly’s collar counties were only slightly “blue.” But the Inky gives those more conservative voters no reason to be actual readers of the newspaper.

Newspapers have more than a single problem. Yes, print newspapers, despite fancy colored printing and photographs, are simply updated 18th century technology, and the reduction in print subscribers has meant a dramatic downturn in advertising revenue. But they also have a 19th century problem: in becoming so highly slanted, they have reverted to the one-party newspaper style of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. In the 19th century, there were competing newspapers in every city of any size, and if readers of one particular political stripe did not like the slant of one newspaper, they could turn to another.

Today, few cities have more than one newspaper, but newspapers do have competition, from television news. If MSNBC and CNN are slanted to the left, Fox News and the One America News Network are slanted to the right, and consumers can do something really radical like choose the sources they prefer. That newspapers face serious competition from television news and the internet is obvious; when they respond by pissing off half of their potential readership, they compound their problems.

References

References
↑1 The word “combitch” is a Picoism, for which I would bet you can figure out the etymology. Feel free to use it yourselves, with an appropriate credit appreciated.
↑2 This was not a typographical error. The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias.
Posted on by

The pro-abortionists really, really don’t like it when someone uses plain and concise language If abortion is such a good and noble thing, why must the left mealy-mouth their words about it?

We have previously noted how the credentialed media use control of language to try to influence the debate toward their favored positions, which always seem to be toward the left.

Twitter did so by prohibiting “targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.” Simply put, if someone wanted to tweet something about William Thomas, the male swimmer who claims to be female and is on the University of Pennsylvania’s women’s swim team using the name “Lia,” that person would have to concede to Mr Thomas’ claim that he is a woman by using the feminine pronouns and his assumed name, not his real one. The New York Times laughably gave major OpEd space to Chad Malloy, a man male who claims to be a woman going by the name “Parker” to claim that Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech.

Twitter’s ban on ‘deadnaming’ — the reference to ‘transgender’ people by their birth names — and ‘misgendering’ — the reference to ‘transgender’ people by their natural, biological sex — tramples on the speech of normal people, people who do not believe that girls can be boys and boys can be girls. The argument is that, in effect, we can’t hurt their precious little feelings, and so we must concede their major point to engage in debate. Here’s hoping that Elon Musk changes that!

Now comes Jeffrey Barg, also known as the Angry Grammarian, getting upset that Associate Justice Samuel Alito used plain language, did something radical like tell the truth, in his leaked draft majority opinion on Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Continue reading →

Posted on by

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

While Abteilung für Vaterländische Sicherheit is a more literal translation of Department of Fatherland Homeland Security, perhaps Reichssicherheitshauptamt, Reich Main Security Office, would be a more accurate one. And Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, frequently shortened to Propagandaministerium, was at least more honest than the ‘official’ name for Herr Biden’s Ministry of Truth, the ‘Disinformation Governance Board.’ As we hear about the Department of Fatherland Homeland Security and its new Ministry of Truth Disinformation Governance Board, now we get this story, from The Wall Street Journal:

FBI Conducted Potentially Millions of Searches of Americans’ Data Last Year, Report Says

Searches in national-security investigations came without warrants, could stoke privacy concerns in Congress

by Dustin Volz | Friday, April 29, 2022 | 6:22 PM EDT

Also see: William Teach: FBI Conducted Almost 3.4 Million Warrantless “Wiretaps” In 2021, Media Mostly Silent

WASHINGTON—The Federal Bureau of Investigation performed potentially millions of searches of American electronic data last year without a warrant, U.S. intelligence officials said Friday, a revelation likely to stoke longstanding concerns in Congress about government surveillance and privacy.

An annual report published Friday by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence disclosed that the FBI conducted as many as 3.4 million searches of U.S. data that had been previously collected by the National Security Agency.

Senior Biden administration officials said the actual number of searches is likely far lower, citing complexities in counting and sorting foreign data from U.S. data. It couldn’t be learned from the report how many Americans’ data was examined by the FBI under the program, though officials said it was also almost certainly a much smaller number.

The report doesn’t allege the FBI was routinely searching American data improperly or illegally.

Well, no, but then again, it wouldn’t.

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Various Supreme Court decisions, including Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), and Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963), have ‘incorporated,’ or applied the Fourth Amendment to state action as well. We take our constitutional rights seriously, but in its ever-expanding attempts to protect the United States, federal law has been gradually chipping away at those rights. And while the disclosure noted by the Journal occurred entirely under the Biden Administration, it has to be admitted that it has happened under Republican presidents as well. Remember: the Department of Fatherland Homeland Security was created under the younger President Bush following the September 11 attacks.

It was when the creation of that cabinet department was proposed that a very liberal friend of mine was calling it the Department of Fatherland Security. I gave it some credence, despite the fact he was pretty much a nutcase when it came to blaming the Bush family for everything bad under the sun.[1]The first World Trade Center bombing, she said, was aimed at the elder President Bush, even though he had already been defeated for re-election and left office, while the second was aimed at the … Continue reading

The disclosure of the searches marks the first time a U.S. intelligence agency has published an accounting, however imprecise, of the FBI’s grabs of American data through a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that governs some foreign intelligence gathering. The section of FISA that authorizes the FBI’s activity, known as Section 702, is due to expire next year.

While the ODNI report doesn’t suggest systemic problems with the searches, judges have previously reprimanded the bureau for failing to comply with privacy rules. Officials said the FBI’s searches were vital to its mission to protect the U.S. from national-security threats. The frequency of other forms of national-security surveillance detailed in the annual report generally fell year over year, in some cases continuing a multiyear trend.

The 3.4 million figure “is certainly a large number,” a senior FBI official said in a press briefing Friday on the report. “I am not going to pretend that it isn’t.” .  .  .  .

Congress last renewed Section 702 in 2018, and then-President Donald Trump signed the renewal into law after openly questioning the measure over unsubstantiated concerns that it was used to spy on his presidential campaign. It is set to expire again at the end of next year, and current and former intelligence officials have said they anticipate a bruising political battle.

At some point, a point I think has not only been reached, but passed, we need to start realizing that yes, there could be increased danger to our national security, but that the endangerment of our constitutional rights is a far, far, far greater threat to Americans than attacks from foreign governments or terrorist organizations. President Clinton was overly concerned about going after Osama bin Laden might somehow violate international law without the proper gathering of evidence first, to the point at which then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright insisted that Pakistan, the government of which was rife with Taliban sympathizers, had to be notified about a cruise missile overflight in the attempt to destroy Mr bin Laden and his associated in a campground in Afghanistan. The attack went ahead, but the al Qaeda leaders had left the scene hours before.

Yet since that time, we’ve created federal bureaucracies which trample upon our constitutional rights in attempts to protect our nation against outsiders. Is it really worth it to protect America if we have to cease being America to do so?

Section 702 should not be renewed, and we have to find some other way, even if it risks being less efficient, to protect the United States. Mr Biden’s Ministry of Truth should not be allowed, or funded.

References

References
↑1 The first World Trade Center bombing, she said, was aimed at the elder President Bush, even though he had already been defeated for re-election and left office, while the second was aimed at the younger President Bush, even though the planning and preparation for it had begun while Bill Clinton was President, and Al Gore was favored to win the 2000 election.
Posted on by

Freedom of Speech and the Special Snowflakes™

Donald Trump used to call the credentialed media #FakeNews, but even he never set up a ‘Disinformation Governance Board‘, nor picked someone like Nina Jankowicz, who for months told us that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, to head it.

On April 25th, she told us how she feels about #FreedomOfSpeech:

Not to worry, she got the word out to the leftists and Special Snowflakes™ in the credentialed media: Continue reading →

Posted on by

The truth shall set you free, and the extreme left are afraid that Libs of Tik Tok will set some Democrats free of their party!

Why, I have to ask, is The Washington Post paying owner Jeff Bezos’ hard earned dollars to Elon Musk’s Twitter to promote an article doxing a conservative on Twitter? The image to the right is a screen capture, but if you click on it, it will take you to the original tweet.

Post writer Taylor Lorenz spent a lot of time investigating the Twitter account Libs of TikTok. LoTT’s schtick is to find the silliest things leftists put on the social media site Tik Tok, and snark them for sensible people on Twitter. Basically, LoTT is mocking people for their own exposed stupidity. My good friend Amanda Marcotte of Salon loved that LoTT was doxed, doubtlessly hoping that Chaya Raichik, a Brooklyn-based real estate salesperson and LoTT creator would lose her job, and her posting today is a hope that Mr Musk’s buyout of Twitter results in the whole thing being killed. Continue reading →

Posted on by

The New York Times really hates freedom of speech . . . for other people

In 1971, President Richard Nixon sought a restraining order to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from printing more of the so-called “Pentagon Papers,” technically the Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, a classified history and assessment of American policy and operations in the Vietnam war. The Times and the Post fought the injunctions in court, the Times winning in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Times was all about the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press.

It’s early yet, but at least thus far, the editors of The New York Times have not published an editorial attacking Elon Musk’s agreed-to purchase of Twitter, but that doesn’t mean they haven’t allowed one of their Editorial Board to opine against it.

Twitter Under Elon Musk Will Be a Scary Place

by Greg Bensinger | April 25, 2022 | 7:20 PM EDT

Twitter has never been a place for rational, nuanced speech. Expect it to get much, much worse.

The New York Times has always been a supporter of freedom of the press . . . when they were the guardians and gatekeepers of that freedom. It wasn’t that long ago when for someone to get his opinions heard beyond bullhorn range, he had to persuade an editor to give him column inches in the newspaper or air time on radio or television. It did not matter how “rational” or “nuanced” what you had to say might have been, if an editor didn’t approve, it wasn’t to be published or broadcast. Continue reading →

Posted on by

At Ohio State University, the students want wrongthink punished

The freedom of speech comes with the freedom of other people to read or listen to, or not read or listen to, what you have said. The freedom of speech also comes with the assumed risk that those who do read or listen to your words can and just might criticize what you have written or said.

It seems, however, at least at Ohio State University, it also comes with the risk that you might be reported to the authorities.

OSU Student Faces Criticism For Saying Black People Are Superior: ‘I Full-Heartedly Believe That’

Danteé Ramos | Earthy Day, April 22, 2022 | 4:04 PM EDT

An Ohio State University (OSU) student leader is facing criticism after saying that he’d “love” to live in a world if “Black people were taught that they are superior.”

According to OSU’s student newspaper, The Lantern, On March 23, John Fuller, a junior, who was a member of the Ohio State University Undergraduate Student Government General Assembly at the time of the meeting, made comments while proposing resolutions targeting all anti-critical race theory legislation to the General Assembly.

“By taking away the teaching of one race as superior to another, that is inherently white supremacy because white people learn from birth that they are superior. There is nothing that they need to be taught in school that tells them that,” Fuller said.

“I just wanted to say that and make this very clear, the only people who are taught that they are superior to another race are White people,” Fuller said. “And I would absolutely love to live in a world where Black people were taught that they are superior.”

He added that he “full-heartedly” believes that Black people are superior.

OSU’s Undergraduate Student Government President, Jacob Chang, told the student newspaper The Lantern that Fuller’s comments were “diverging from our values.”

So, Mr Fuller was criticized for saying out loud that he “full-heartedly” believes that black people are superior. That is the risk he takes by speaking in public, and the freedom of speech of others to criticize what he said certainly exists. But then comes the money line in the story:

“The comments made during the General Assembly session is fundamentally, like, diverging from our values as the student government of Ohio State,” Chang said. “Therefore, it is our responsibility to report a case like this. I think we need to stand in solidarity with all people of color and anyone who suffers from racism, but we need to do it from a space that is unilaterally empowering everyone around them instead of like single out one group.”

OSU’s student newspaper, The Lantern, reported that after Mr Fuller made his comments, the Speaker of the student General Assembly dismissed him, and that members of the Assembly forwarded video and audio of his comments to the university’s Office of Institutional Equity.

They did? Apparently members of the Assembly believed that Mr Fuller’s comments ought not only to be disapproved, but punished as well. From The Lantern:

The resolution condemning all anti-critical race theory passed in the General Assembly, Chang said. The resolution is crucial to ensure that critical race theory is taught at public universities, but the way Fuller made it about “empowerment and another form of like supremacy” that was “inherently racist,” he said.

Chang said the next step is to hope the university takes action on the case against Fuller.

“No matter what race you are from, what background you are from, you cannot say stuff like that,” Chang said.

If you yell, “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and that yell leads to a crushing stampede to the exits, in which people are injured, you can be held legally liable. But Mr Chang and at least some members of the student government want to see Mr Fuller somehow punished for making a statement of which they disapproved which injured no one, unless perhaps it was someone’s precious little feelings. More accurately, they would like to see Mr Fuller punished somehow for “full-heartedly” believing that black people are superior to other races.

What might such punishment entail? Neither article tells us, but it isn’t difficult to speculate. Mandatory ‘re-education’ classes to reform his beliefs? A forced statement that he doesn’t really believe what he said? Could it even lead to academic probation, suspension or expulsion? We just don’t know, but the fact that the student government wants Mr Fuller punished somehow for what he believes and said he believes is chilling. Ohio State is a public university, which would mean that the state would be taking action against a student for exercising his freedom of speech.

Posted on by

Irony is so ironic: Robert Reich uses his freedom of speech and of the press to attack freedom of speech and of the press

We noted on Saturday, April 9th, that Ellen Pao, a tech investor and advocate, the resigned-before-she-could-be-fired CEO of Reddit, and a cofounder and CEO of the diversity and inclusion nonprofit Project Include, and someone who uses her freedom of speech and of the press to maintain her own website, used her freedom of speech and of the press — in that case, The Washington Post’s freedom of the press — to attack other people’s freedom of speech and of the press. That irony seemed to escape her.

Now comes Robert B Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com, using his freedom of speech, and The Guardian’s freedom of the press, to tell us that if you support freedom of speech and of the press, you’re no better than Vladimir Putin! Continue reading →

Posted on by

Irony is so ironic: Ellen Pao uses her freedom of speech and of the press to attack freedom of speech and of the press

While the famous Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co v United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is more famously associated with the Times, The Washington Post was heavily involved as well. The petitioners argued that the government trying to prohibit “publication of current news of vital importance to the people of this country” was wholly wrong and a violation of the First Amendment, a position with which the Supreme Court agreed.

But now it seems that the very same Washington Post doesn’t like it when another privately owned company might choose to publish things with which the Post disagrees:

    Elon Musk’s vision of ‘free speech’ will be bad for Twitter

    Tesla CEO has used platform in ugly ways. Now he gets to shape the company’s policies.

    By Ellen K. Pao[1]Ellen K. Pao is a tech investor and advocate, the former CEO of reddit, and a cofounder and CEO of the diversity and inclusion nonprofit Project Include. | Friday, April 8, 2022 | 11:42 AM EDT

    Ellen K Pao, screen capture from her website.

    It takes a lot of money to become a board member of Twitter, but not a lot else apparently. With a large stock purchase, an abuser of the service — Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and the world’s richest man — has now essentially bought himself a warm welcome from Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal. For those of us who care about equity and accountability, Musk’s appointment to such a prominent role at a platform that serves hundreds of millions of users daily is highly disconcerting — a slap in the face, even.

    Musk has been open about his preference that Twitter do less to restrict speech that many see as hateful, abusive or dangerous. Given his new influence, the way he himself has used the platform bodes ill for its future. Musk paid $20 million in fines to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and stepped down as Tesla’s chairman, after tweeting what the SEC said was misleading information about a potential transaction to take the company private; the settlement also required that any Musk tweets about the company’s finance be reviewed by lawyers. (He continues to flout SEC rules, failing to notify the agency immediately last month when he passed the threshold of owning 5 percent of Twitter’s shares. The 11-day delay in that declaration may have netted him $156 million, experts say — since shares shot up after investors learned of his purchases.)

    On nonfinancial subjects, Musk, who has nearly 81 million followers, often punches down in his tweets, displaying very little empathy. He called a British caver who helped to rescue trapped young Thai divers “a pedo guy” (beating a defamation suit over the slur but adding to his reputation as a bully). In February, he tweeted, then deleted, a meme comparing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to Adolf Hitler.

Let’s be truthful here: a lot of Twitter users compared Mr Trudeau to der Führer! The Prime Minister’s use of arbitrary and dictatorial orders to fight COVID-19 and to stifle protest aren’t exactly the actions one would normally attribute to a free and democratic government.

    Perhaps not coincidentally, allegations of incidents involving racism and sexism at Tesla have been common — standing out even by tech-world’s low standards. A female engineer who sued Tesla, claiming “unwanted and pervasive harassment,” reported that one area in a Tesla factory in Fremont, Calif., was known to women as the “predator zone.” Black workers have claimed that White workers at that same factory referred to another area as “the plantation.” Like many trolls, Musk says his critics — both those on Twitter and those who sue him — should be more “thick-skinned.” He used that phrase in message to factory workers, some of whom had raised concerns about racial harassment.

After a couple more paragraphs in which the author tells us what a scumbag Mr Musk is – and I am not a fan of Mr Musk myself – we get to this:

    Musk calls himself a “free-speech absolutist,” but like many “free speech” advocates, he willfully ignores that private companies are free to establish some limits on their platforms. He hasn’t learned from the folks who left Facebook and subsequently raised alarms about the harms the platform can cause teenage girls and other users. Or even from Dick Costolo or Evan Williams, former CEOs of Twitter, both of whom eventually realized how pervasive and harmful online harassment is. (“I wish I could turn back the clock and go back to 2010 and stop abuse on the platform by creating a very specific bar for how to behave on the platform,” Costolo said in 2017.) Co-founder Williams even went on to build a new company for sharing information, Medium, because he regretted the way Twitter, Facebook and other platforms had turned into free-fire zones. Lots of tech leaders — though not Musk — are turning against “free speech” models that end up letting the loudest, most extreme and hateful voices win, driving others off the platforms.

No one sees everything on Twitter; people see the tweets of those they follow, or tweets to which one of their followers responds or likes or retweets. But it’s simple: if Miss Pao thinks that “the loudest, most extreme and hateful voices win, (and are) driving others off the platforms,” then Twitter might lose users and the company lose value; Mr Musk has bet against that, and it is his money!

Of course, Twitter has, itself, driven off users, through its censorship of conservative views.

The Post itself did not say what Miss Pao wrote; the editors simply provided space for her to express her view independently. But one has to wonder: just how closely do the views of the editors of the Post adhere to Miss Pao’s opinion?

The New York Times, that paragon of freedom of speech and of the press, published OpEds celebrating Twitter’s banning of “misgendering” and “deadnaming” of transgender individuals, and even an OpEd entitled “Free Speech Is Killing Us. ”

The revolution which began with Rush Limbaugh and continued with the internet, and the ability of anyone to express his views more widely, ended the gatekeeping functions of the editors, and that’s something they just cannot stand. Now, anyone can say anything, without an editor to censor him. Twitter is, of course, the largest self publishing medium in the world, and now we have a part owner and board member who wants to issue less editorial restraint on users, and the credentialed media really, really, really don’t like that. Heaven forfend! Donald Trump might be allowed back on Twitter!

    Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication. For starters, we need consistent definitions of harassment and of content that violates personal privacy. Most companies, I suspect, would welcome such regulations: They would give executives cover to do things they know should be done but which they are afraid to try, out of fear of political backlash or a revolt by some users. If platforms continue to push for growth at all costs — without such regulations — people will continue to be harmed. The people harmed will disproportionately be those who have been harmed for centuries — women and members of marginalized racial and ethnic groups. The people who benefit from unrestricted amplification of their views will also be the same people who have benefited from that privilege for centuries.

Freedom of speech and of the press is harmful, Miss Pao has just said. That she used her freedom of speech, and the Post’s freedom of the press to disseminate her view on the subject seems not to have occurred to her, or, if it did, she thought that what she said ought to be acceptable, and not deserving of censorship, or criticism.

Miss Pao, a child of privilege — her mother a researcher, her father a math professor, who was able to matriculate at Princeton, and, following that, go straight to Harvard Law School — is very, very concerned about “women and members of marginalized racial and ethnic groups,” sued — and lost! — a sex discrimination lawsuit against her former employer Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, yet, in an article attacking “incels,” or the “involuntarily celibate,” The Perverse Incentives That Help Incels Thrive in Tech, which she has linked on the main page of her website, she wrote, “We cannot allow employees to mobilize identity-based intolerance, much less against their own coworkers,” and yet she just attacked “the same people who have benefited from that privilege for centuries,” certainly identity-based intolerance on her part.

I get it: Miss Pao, specifically, and much of the left in general, do not like freedom of speech and freedom of the press when people of whom they do not approve use their First Amendment rights to express views to which the left are opposed.

References

References
↑1 Ellen K. Pao is a tech investor and advocate, the former CEO of reddit, and a cofounder and CEO of the diversity and inclusion nonprofit Project Include.