Facebook's Ban of Trump Is Not an Infringement of Free Speech

Over the next few months, Facebook's Oversight Board of thinkers from around the world will decide whether Facebook's ban on Trump should stand or whether he should be let back on.   Academic free speech advocates are already suggesting that the Board may well be more responsive to free speech concerns and reinstate Trump.   And they are clearly happy with this prospect. 

Something has gone very wrong with the concept of free speech protected by the 1st Amendment to our Constitution.   There are two issues here.   The first is, whether lies and misinformation such as Trump engaged in can be prohibited speech.   The second is, how does the advent and impact of social media, as well as cable news, affect the concept of clear and present danger. 

Let me once again remind the reader that the 1st Amendment's right of free speech is not absolute, just as none of the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is absolute.   The court has long held that certain types of injurious speech can be regulated.   Whether it's false advertising, libel or slander, obscenity, or gag orders relating to a court case, the court has approved regulating speech when there is a clear danger of harm to others or, in the case of gag orders, to the impartial process of jury deliberations.   In such cases, the state's interest in regulating the speech outweighs the protection granted by the 1st Amendment.   

Clearly Trump's lies and misinformation made it virtually impossible for people who believe him, he was the President after all, to render a reasoned verdict on who they should vote for.   All politicians lie occasionally, including Presidents, but the systematic manipulation of facts by equating lies with "alternative facts" and the truth as "fake news" has no precedent, at least in modern American history.   

Trump is an expert proponent of the "big lie," a propaganda theory perfected by the Nazis.  Adolf Hitler in his book, Mein Kampf, wrote of the value of using a lie so huge that no one would believe that one would have "the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."   

Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, went on to expand, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

If the reader things my Nazi reference is uncalled for, Trump stated very clearly to Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes that his purpose in bashing the press, calling it "fake news," was to discredit them, to create a reality in which his supporters would not believe the allegations that he knew would be made against him by his opponents.   This is a classic use of the big lie.

But free speech advocates argue against regulating political speech because it does not harm someone, it is an exchange of ideas, which is critical to the proper functioning of a democracy.   They say there is no threat of "imminent lawless action" or "clear and present danger" which the Court has required.   Forgetting that those standards have been used by the Court to judge speech that advocates the use of force or violation of the law.   And so regardless how outrageous or damaging, free speech advocates claim he should be allowed to speak for the sake of our democracy. 

What is the impact of technology, of social media, on discussing this question?  As recently as 25 years ago, a politician or President could have made the kind of comments Trump makes routinely and it would have had little effect because it would have gotten little exposure and/or he would have been exposed for what he is in the news, both print and TV.   All news media, at least major ones, were mainstream, whether liberal or conservative. 

But with the advent of Fox News in 1996, and then the social media platforms of Twitter and Facebook in 2006 and 2004 respectively, the ability of someone to propagate their own fake news, their big lie, went viral.   As we've seen with COVID-19 and the election, there are innumerable right-wing media outlets that will propagate the lies and misinformation of the President.   And through social media such as Twitter and Facebook, the President had the ability of directly communicating with his millions of followers, and so they got the word from him undiluted and unquestioned.  The result was disastrous.

Regarding the election, although no one was "harmed" in the classic sense such as false advertising or libel, this situation is more analogous to the gag order.   There it is the process of justice that must be protected and kept impartial.   Here it is the process of the election, which while certainly not impartial, must allow people to exercise a choice, to reason.   That is what lies behind the concept of freedom of speech and its essential nature to democracy. 

And so I would argue that Trump's constant stream of lies and misinformation through social and other media did and does constitute a clear and present danger to the process of our elections, which is the process of democracy.   And so his speech can be prohibited. 

Regarding the pandemic, his lies and misinformation not just presented a clear and present danger, but it did in fact result in great harm to millions of people, indeed to our entire country.  We're not just talking about those who died, or those who have been infected, were talking about the effect of the pandemic on people's lives and their financial and psychological well-being.  Such speech can and should be prohibited.

The question then is should his rights be suspended for a short period of time or should he be banned from Facebook?  Given the pathological nature of his lies and misinformation and the fact that it occurred almost daily during his entire presidency, I think there is justification for holding that the ban can and indeed should be permanent.   Even out of office, he poses a huge potential threat to our democracy if he is given a media platform to speak to the people. 

For the sake of our democracy's well-being, the Facebook ban on Trump should be made permanent. 

The Right-wing Press, Alternative Facts, and the FCC

If you look at The New York Time's "Coronavirus World Map" (December 25), you will be surprised to learn the the U.S. has the second worst record of per capita daily cases.  Only Lithuania has a worse record. 

How sad that this great country, home to one of the finest medical systems in the world, is experiencing such devastation. 

And why is this happening?  The answer falls clearly on the shoulders of President Trump.   Through a combination of well-documented early inaction, a disastrous stand on not wearing masks, turning epidemiological controls into attacks on people's Constitutional rights, and lack of a coordinated federal policy, we are approaching 20,000,000 cases and have surpassed 340,000 deaths. 

Why is it that half the country doesn't seem to realize this.   The answer is that they listen to right-wing news media, who have aided and abetted this crime against the nation. 

What is it about the right-wing media?  How could they be so callous about what is happening throughout the country that they continue to support Trump in his dismissal of the virus as something not serious.   This is not a question of free speech, of opinion.   This is a question of using the public air waves to disseminate lies, misinformation in the current parlance, that threaten the well-being of our country.   

Stations, whether radio, TV, or cable, receive a license to broadcast from the Federal Communication Commission.   Station licensees, as the trustees of the public’s airwaves, must use the broadcast medium to serve the public interest.

The FCC gives stations broad leeway in deciding how it serves that interest.  It will generally not intervene in the exercise of journalistic judgment or opinion.   

"However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC has stated that 'rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.' "

"The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge (italics supplied) that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene."  This quote is from the FCC manual. 

In the current situation regarding reporting on the pandemic, there has been ample evidence that Fox and other news outlets have done precisely that.   They have intentionally distorted the facts, scientific and other, regarding the pandemic.   Further, I believe that there has been reported direction from management to falsify or distort the news. 

The concept of "alternative facts" that was dreamed up by Kellyanne Conway does not provide cover.   Or at least should not.   Again, this is not a matter of someone having a different opinion on something; something where, as lawyers say, reasonable men may differ.  These are made-up facts; a less-offensive term than falsehoods.

By providing alternative facts to the public, right-wing cable stations are in fact misleading the public, they are distorting the facts on a matter of the gravest national public health interest.   And it is their intention to mislead; they know that they are distorting the facts. 

Obviously with Trump appointees as chair and the majority of the FCC, no complaint regarding this issue would have seen the light of day.   They consider alternative facts, facts. 

But in June 2021, Biden will be able to appoint a Commissioner, giving the Democrats a majority.  With a Democratic chair and majority, hopefully someone will come forward that meets the high bar set by the FCC.   Someone with the required direct personal knowledge, i.e.  a whistle blower possessed of internal documents, and make a well-documented complaint regarding the handling of news of the pandemic.   If proven, the result should be that, at a minimum, a substantial fine should be imposed.   But this case is so egregious that revocation of licenses may be appropriate.

If such a person does not come forward, this travesty that has become news reporting will continue unabated, unchastised.   Another example of the negative impact is the near-fanatacism with which liberals protect free speech.   Whether it's the issue of hate speech or something as gross as the misleading "facts" that have been presented by right-wing media recently, the absolutism of free speech advocates is misplaced.   

As I've stated before in posts, the 1st Amendment right, as with all rights, is not absolute.  There are already various exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court to protect the public from immediate and serious harm, such as false advertising, obscenity, and speech that incites to imminent lawless action.   I agree that the requisite intent to mislead is of critical importance, but there are ways of proving that without a whistle-blower. 

Jamming ISIS’ Message on the Internet

Over the course of the past year, we have witnessed a startling increase in terrorist violence undertaken either by organized groups of people or lone individuals under the influence of ISIS’ message of hatred and war against the “crusaders.”  

This violence has many negative impacts beyond those who are killed or injured by the attacks.  It unsettles the broader population, making it fearful of “strangers” in their midst and opening up their minds and hearts to very anti-democratic measures to counter this threat.  It thus tears at the fabric of our societies and threatens the very basis of modern democracy which is tolerance for all and the protection of minorities against the discriminatory whims of the majority.

In both the U.S. since 9/11 and across Europe for decades, far-right politicians have appealed to these fears, stoked them in order to further their own quest for power.  Once they were outliers.  But no longer.  Their words are finding a growing receptive audience as the population becomes increasingly spooked by the violence.  Whether these politicians are sincere in their misguided beliefs, as neo-Nazi’s and many others are, or whether they are deceitfully manipulating people’s fears, which I believe is the case with Donald Trump, makes no difference.  The harm done to our democratic societies is the same.

This violence thus presents one of the greatest threats to democracy in our time.  The question must therefore be asked … why is this happening now?  Have our societies broken down?  Is it because we have all these Muslim immigrants amongst us?  Are these immigrants people who want to harm the very countries that accepted them when they fled their own homes?

No, these are not the answer.  The answer is that we now have the internet.  And with the internet, groups such as ISIS can easily spread their hate and campaign of war into all corners of the world.  Vitriolic videos can be accessed from every computer.  Granted, there needs to be some fertile soil for their message, which comes in the form of people who are desperate, who feel discriminated against, who feel alienated from the larger society.  While the mass of Muslim immigrants clearly do not feel that way, it just takes a few, and without question those individuals exist 

But regardless, without the internet and these individuals’ resulting exposure to ISIS’ message, we would not be experiencing this epidemic of “home-grown” violence.  This is an indisputable fact.

Ergo, the U.S. government has every justification, for security purposes, of somehow jamming ISIS’ message on the internet.  I am not a technical person and so I do not know how or if that is possible.  But there is no question in my mind that we will not experience any peace or security until we find a way to stop the internet from being used to wage war against us.  

This is not a question of free speech or the exchange of ideas protected by our Constitution.  This is a matter of war; make no mistake about it.

The Common Good Always Trumps Individual Rights

The current crop of Republicans, a radical, rabidly conservative group, take as their jumping off point a very unnuanced view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  To them, rights, if not specifically qualified in those documents, are absolute.  So whether it’s the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration, or whether it’s the right of free speech or the right to bear arms in the Constitution, no limitation on those rights is warranted (unless of course it limits the rights of opponents and so suits their purposes.)

And one must say, the words certainly sound absolute.  But let us consider their context.  First, the Declaration of Independence - the mother, if you will, of all our founding documents.  What does the Declaration say about rights?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The context of this recitation of rights is that all men are created equal and that all have the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, unless you believe that the Founding Fathers meant to set up a state of anarchy … with everyone exercising their liberty, doing whatever they wanted, without restraint … one can’t believe that they meant that no bounds could be placed on the exercise of these rights.  

Why?  Because when you have a community of people it is inevitable that at some point the free exercise of one person’s liberty and pursuit of happiness bumps up against another’s … either harming another or impinging that person’s exercise of his liberty.  Since the Declaration states that all men are created equal and all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the system can only work if one says that each person has this liberty so long as it does not harm others or impinge on the rights of others.

This last proposition is in fact the basis for all government laws and regulation of any type.  Whether it’s criminal laws, traffic laws. zoning ordinances, building codes, the Clean Air Act, banking regulations, etc. … all of these derive their legal basis from the basic proposition that neither an individual nor a corporation can act as it will, if such action harms another or the public welfare.

Then there are the sacrosanct rights enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights.  But even the most jealously protected right of them all … the right of free speech … is not absolute.   Not only can one not yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but the laws of libel and slander prohibit both written and spoken words that are defamatory, malicious, and false.  There are false advertising laws, which prevent corporations from misleading the public.  The list goes on and on.

As for the right to bear arms, even assuming for the moment that the Constitution indeed grants that right to an individual (until recently the courts had not so held), it would be ludicrous to argue that the government can place no limitations on a right which has not just the potential, but as we see almost daily causes others grievous injury and death. Yet to the NRA and its supporters, and the majority in Congress which is either beholden to the NRA or scared of its power, virtually any regulation whatsoever, no matter how reasonable and called for, is anathema.

As recently as a generation ago, conservative Republicans understood that while they had their ideologically preferred way of addressing issues, they shared common ground for the most part with Democrats in understanding what the great public issues were.  They understood that we lived in a country where citizens had both rights and responsibilities. Where we all played our part, each according to his abilities, in supporting the government in its role of securing the rights of all to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As it says again in the Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”

That is the purpose of government.  The mantra started by Ronald Reagan and taken up by the Tea Party Republicans that, “government is not the solution; government is the problem,” is at odds with not just our founding documents but our history.  

Indeed, it is at odds with the history of the Republican Party.  It was often Republicans that pushed for government action.  Whether it was the Republican President Lincoln pushing to end slavery or the Republican President Theodore Roosevelt breaking up the huge trusts of the day, such as Standard Oil, Republicans have a long and proud history of arguing for government action to protect those less powerful., to insure that all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When it comes to the rights we have, no one should shrink from vigorously protecting his or her own rights.  However, everyone must understand that with the exercise of rights comes a responsibility not to harm others or impinge on the exercise of their rights. When it does so, then the common good demands that such exercise of an individual right be regulated so as not to harm others.  The common good always trumps the exercise of an individual right.*

*A note of clarification.  In light of recent events around the world, and the comments of several readers, I need to clarify that if the exercise of one's right, such as free speech, offends another or the majority, those others are not harmed nor are their rights in any way impinged.  And so there is no justification for restraint in that situation.  When I speak of the common good, something far more concrete is meant ... like breathing clean air, drinking clean water, not having to fear violence, not being cheated.

Rescuing American Democracy

A healthy democracy depends on a large percentage of the electorate voting and on the voting outcome being the result of a debate on issues and policies.  Our democracy is far from healthy on both these fronts. (I know there are other problems, but those are not within the purview of this post.  See, for example, "The Value of Differing Opinions," 1/4/13.)

In the US, voter turnout is notoriously low even in presidential election years compared with other developed countries.  (The US rate was recently 62%, well below the average of 70% and the top country, Australia, with 95%.)  Certainly, some eligible citizens choose not to get registered and vote.  But much of the low voter turnout results not from choice but from obstacles to voting, which belie the principle of “one man, one vote” and dilutes the participatory nature of our democracy.

A major obstacle in the U.S. is the day selected for elections.  In most countries, election day is on a Sunday, making it easier for people to vote.  In those countries that vote on a weekday, many declare election day a national holiday in order to make it easier for people to vote.  

In the US, of course, voting is on a Tuesday; it is not a national holiday; and voter turnout is shamefully low.  There is thus a nascent movement afoot to have federal elections on the first weekend in November.  As stated in a New York Times op ed piece, “Our current system penalizes single parents, people working two jobs, and those who have to choose between getting a paycheck and casting a ballot. Two weekend days of voting means those working families would have a greater chance of making it to the polls.”

But short of making such a change, it has been generally accepted for several decades that voting should be encouraged by making it as easy as possible to both register and vote.  These efforts have recognized that many people need expanded hours and early voting to have effective access to the polls because of their jobs.  

Recent efforts by Republican-controlled state legislatures to restrict early voting and expanded hours thus attack the principle of “one man, one vote.”  The same is true of laws that require photo IDs.  Both of these efforts make voting more difficult, especially for the working poor.  Voting is an essential right of citizenship; no unnecessary obstacle should be placed on that right.  

The primary concept behind the Constitutional right of free speech and its importance to the functioning of our democracy is the concept of a “marketplace of ideas.”  For this marketplace to function properly, the consumer’s choices should be made based on the quality of the competing ideas not on the marketing effect caused by unequal funding of campaigns.

Since we have never had public financing of campaigns, the unequal impact of money on the marketing effect has always been problematic.  But in recent years, the Supreme Court has struck down even the meagre laws we had attempting to restrict the amount of money given to campaigns by an individual and the amount of money corporations can spend on campaign and issue ads on the basis that such laws are an unconstitutional abridgment of the right to free speech.  

These rulings have resulted in exactly what was feared … an avalanche of corporate and big donor (and thus primarily conservative) dollars in an attempt to influence the outcome of elections, not by virtue of the quality of their ideas but the overwhelming volume of marketing.  This makes the marketplace of ideas totally dysfunctional.

It also dilutes the concept of “one man, one vote.”  If one takes the concept seriously, it necessitates not just that no person’s actual vote counts more than another’s, it means that no person’s voice counts more than another’s …  at least not because of the amount of money a person has.  Because if it does, if money talks in elections, then a relatively small body of people and corporations have a much greater voice in the election and thus often the outcome of an election than the general voting populace.  Obviously, money doesn’t always ensure winning.  But it sure helps.  This is contrary to the egalitarian nature of our democratic principles.

For this reason, we should have public financing of elections with all candidates having the same amount of money to spend and with all outside advertising, whether on issues or candidates, prohibited within a certain time period of elections.

But the proper functioning of the marketplace of ideas requires more than equal time (a concept in broadcasting which unfortunately has been discarded).  It requires the absence of lies and deceit.  

I know the theory is that lies will be exposed in the give and take of the marketplace and so will not give the perpetrator an advantage.  However, in our viral instant communication age, the fact is that a falsehood once cleverly spoken attains so much currency that it is virtually impossible for the victim to recover, to effectively counter the lie and render it harmless.

What we therefore need is a “Truth in Political Advertising” law.  See my very first post, “Truth in Politics: De-Frauding American Politics,” 2/1/11.

There is nothing more important to the continued healthy functioning of our democracy than that we have an informed electorate, that a large percentage of the electorate votes, and that no one has a greater voice in the outcome of an election by virtue of the amount of money he (or a corporation) spends.  Laws need to be passed to protect and improve the process.

Hate Speech - The TIme Has Come to Regulate It

Hate speech is defined as “speech that attacks and is an incitement to hatred of a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.”  Hate speech is not a rational discussion of the pros and cons of a group’s values or actions.  It is targeted solely at the listener’s emotions.

There has always been a lot of hate speech in this country, but over the past few decades, it seems to be getting worse.  As in the past, hate speech is directed against various groups ... gays and lesbians, people of color, immigrants, pro-choice women and their doctors, Muslims ... with the object of either inciting the public to act against these groups, often through legislative action but also often through violence, or just denigrating their value as human beings.

Such speech has been deemed protected by the 1st Amendment’s right of free speech.  While that right is not absolute, the only limitations on speech approved by the U.S. Supreme Court have been incitement that created a clear and present danger of violence or illegal action, libel and slander, obscenity, “gag” orders to insure justice, or protecting consumers from false advertising, for example.

In each of these cases, someone was being harmed in a way that could not be practically countered in the “marketplace of ideas,” which is the function of free speech in a democracy.  While most European countries, and some others, banned hate speech after WWII because of the Nazi experience, the United States has not seen fit to do that.  The reasoning being that unless there was a clear and present danger, the hateful speech could be countered in the marketplace of ideas by other speech.

This reasoning may have had some validity in the pre-internet, pre-cable TV era.  But now it is a specious argument.  We live in an era where many people lead very polarized, insular lives.  Because of the advent of the internet and cable television, people now can and do listen only to news and pundits that agree with their point of view.  If they hear an opposing viewpoint, they dismiss it out of hand as being biased or ill-informed.

We also live in an age where information goes viral, which is to say that like a virus, the information spreads very quickly.  Given these two factors, together with the fact that guns are readily available and there seems to be less inhibition to using them against people, hate speech has a heightened  ability to cause a clear and present danger to the physical or mental well-being of an individual or group of individuals.  And it therefore should be banned.

Interestingly, the loudest opponents of such a law would be liberals, for whom the right of free speech is sacrosanct.  But as discussed, the right is not absolute, and such a law would not be a “slippery slope” leading to further restrictions on free speech.

Regarding those who create hate speech, they should not be able to disingenuously claim the protection of free speech.  The court has made clear that people are to be protected from a clear and present danger of violence.  In the case of much hate speech, it is clearly the intent of the speaker or writer to foment violence against individuals or groups based on an emotional hatred.  That one has no way of knowing whether someone will act on that incitement should not protect such speech.  By the time someone acts, it is too late.

And for those many instances in which hate speech deals with a legislative agenda, it should also be banned.  While there is certainly time for opposing viewpoints to be aired, the marketplace of ideas is not functioning very well in our current polarized internet/cable TV environment.  

But more fundamentally, hate speech has no place in a civilized society.  Just as a society has the right to protect consumers from false advertising and children from obscenity, society has the right and I would say the duty to protect people from hate speech.  Both the haters and those who are the object of hate suffer as a result of such speech.

The Value of Differing Opinions - A Way Back from the Breach

Our democracy and the right of free speech is based on the value the founding fathers placed on differing opinions.  It is by the airing of differing opinions that people are either  persuaded or not, or a compromise is found which while not giving either side everything it wanted provides a way for each side to feel good about the outcome.  But ultimately, of course, the majority rules, which means that there will in most political matters be a large percentage of people and their elected representatives who are not happy with the result.  Such is life in a democracy.

For such a system to work, for our democracy and representative government to function, it is of critical importance that even though people and their representatives may disagree with others as to a whole raft of issues, that, as lawyers say, “people agree to disagree,” that they understand that “reasonable minds may differ.”  Which is to say that each side respects that the other side came to its opinions honestly and with reason ... they just don’t agree.

When, however, people become so convinced of the rightness of their opinions that they become self-righteous and ideological in their approach to issues ... that is they feel that they are not just right and the other side wrong but that the other side is somehow evil or harmful ... then there can be no compromise, there can be no reasoned discussion, there can be no art of persuasion and the process of our democratic government breaks down.  And that is the state in which we have found ourselves these past few years.

How have we come to this point?  Why has a system that has operated for more than 200 years, with the exception of the Civil War, with widely divergent points of view and often hot tempers reached the current impasse?  Really, what we are seeing now in the posture of the two opposing sides is most akin to that which our country experienced over the issue of slavery and to a certain extent the civil rights movement.  And that’s disturbing.

On the issue of slavery and civil rights, those in the south felt that their whole way of life, their whole world would cease to be if African-Americans were given their freedom and the same rights as white people.  And they were right.  Their world did change.  But life went on, and white southerners changed too; they adapted to the new reality.  And they found once they got over themselves that much about their world did not change.

The same kind of reality check is needed in the current situation in order to progress from the current Congressional gridlock.  Both sides ... which is to say the liberal left and the far right ... need to understand that life will go on, that the country will prosper, that they and their constituents will be ok, even if their view of government does not totally win the day.  This is surely an instance where there is merit on both sides.  

For example, as staunchly liberal as I am, I get livid when I get emails and petitions, or read articles, in which liberal groups refuse to give an inch on entitlement (Social Security and Medicare) spending.  I’m sorry, but the nation’s debt and deficit are real problems and we just do not have sufficient revenue to continue past policies unaltered as our age demographics change.  

There are ways to cut spending without harming those who are truly dependent on these benefits, and that’s what Democrats must make sure of.  As for the starting age of Medicare, that used to be of critical importance because of the cost of medical insurance.  Now with the new Health Care Law, insurance available through the insurance exchanges for those of limited means will probably not be much more than what one currently pays out of Social Security for Plan B.  So it should not be the critical issue it once was.  There’s also a painless opportunity to raise revenues for SS by ending the salary cap regarding the application of the SS tax.

But how do we get both the public and their representatives to get down from these barricades they’ve erected?  How do we get them to go back to the day when each side respected the other side?

As a Buddhist, I find the answer in the teachings of the Buddha.  The Buddha taught that all things are empty of intrinsic existence, that they are of dependent origination.  What that means is that every thought we have, every opinion we hold, all our perspectives are a function of our learned experience, whether within our family, our peer group, or the larger culture.  

As a proposed statement of fact, this statement is unassailable.  And when one truly accepts that fact, there is no way that one can say any more with certitude that I am right and the others are wrong.  Even if one is Born Again, your opinions are based on the teachings of your peer group, your minister, and they in turn were learned from someone else.  They are as dependent as the opinions of a secular humanist atheist.  And if anyone has the hubris to say that God has spoken to them and this is what God says, beware!

There should be only a few universal rules in coming to a compromise on issues.  First, do unto others as you would have them do unto you; love and respect your neighbor as you do yourself.  Second, do no harm to those who are vulnerable and need the protection of the state.  Third, the social contract must be honored by all citizens, part of which entails that those who are better off have a social responsibility as citizens to help those who are not well off ... that’s what progressive taxation is all about.  Fourth, there can be no sacred cows ... neither military spending nor entitlements.

Application of these rules would arrive at numerous ways to cut the deficit and slow the growth of the national debt through a combination of raised revenues and reduced spending without harming either individuals in need, the strength of the economy, or our national security.

A Troubled Republic On This July 4th

As we celebrate this July 4^th, the state of our republic is troubled. Two core principles of American democracy are under attack … the role of government and the democratic process. And the attack is cynically being waged under the banner of protecting our system and our rights from the power of government.

As we all know, the Declaration of Independence’s most famous line is, “All men are created equal,” and that they have “unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Less commonly known are the words that follow … “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” In other words, the role of government is to act in a way so as to secure the rights of the people to equality, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Both of these thoughts were truly revolutionary in a world where governments were in the hands of and benefited solely those with power and wealth. This new view of the role of government and the equality of all people was the cornerstone of the American republic, despite the fact that it would take almost a century for African-Americans to become legally equal and another 50 years for women.

Over the course of the last century, after suffrage was made universal and all citizens were finally deemed to have the rights embodied in the Declaration, the role of government in securing those unalienable rights for all evolved of necessity to helping the less fortunate through a variety of government programs.  Prominent among them have been universal education, Social Security, labor laws, government welfare, and Medicare/Medicaid.

Without these programs, government recognized that the legal equality of all people was meaningless. People needed to be given real equal opportunity to pursue their rights. Both Republicans and Democrats agreed on this basic principle, but would of course regularly disagree on the particulars of government programs to secure that equality.

With regards to the process of our democracy since universal suffrage, it can best be summarized by the dictum, “One man, one vote.” This means that every citizen of voting age should be able to vote and that each person’s vote should count the same.

Viewed in this light, the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United makes a farce of our democratic process by caring only for form, not substance. If those with wealth and power have the ability through television advertising to in effect control an election because of the disproportionate influence of such advertising, then those with wealth and power have achieved their aims through the back door.  Who votes is of little consequence if the real power lies elsewhere.

Only if candidates are on an equal or relatively equal financial footing can there be the fair contest of ideas that is essential to our democracy and to the efficacy of freedom of speech.

The health of our economy and the business community is of vital importance to the health of our country and the welfare of its citizens. But we have long since passed the day when one would say, “What’s good for General Motors, is good for the country.” The same criticism holds true for the radical pro-business, anti-government policies of the Koch brothers, the Tea Party, and their Republican allies. Our democracy depends on a balance between private rights, the public good, and government.

We are as Lincoln said, a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Let us not pervert that heritage by making our system a government “of big business, by big business, and for big business.” Let us learn from the past, not return to it.

Islamophobia Has No Place in Our Democratic Society

Life for American Muslims has gotten more difficult in the wake of the Islamophobia that has swept across the land since last August’s “Ground Zero mosque” demonstrations.  Case in point: the Orange County, CA District Attorney recently filed criminal misdemeanor charges against Muslim students for disturbing a public meeting and conspiring to do so.

A year ago at the U. of California, Irvine, several Muslim students – members of the Muslim Student Union – disrupted the Israeli ambassador repeatedly during his speech at the university, shouting protests against Israel.   The students were removed from the hall and the MSU was suspended for a quarter.  The students were not disciplined.

The university’s action was appropriate.  Central to the concept of free speech in our democracy’s marketplace of ideas is the position that various points of view must be allowed to be voiced and heard.  As with most rights, however, there is a concomitant responsibility not to use that right to interfere with its exercise by another. 

By choosing to heckle the ambassador and interrupting his speech, as opposed to, for example, setting up a booth outside the entrance to the hall with banners voicing their feelings, they were attempting to shout him down, to force him to stop speaking, to silence him.  While there is a long tradition of heckling speakers in this country and elsewhere, such action is not the hallmark of a civil society and it is not uncommon for such protesters to be removed from the space by security guards or police.

The MSU was not disciplined for expressing its opinion as it had done frequently in the past without any university action.  It was disciplined for interfering with someone else’s right to be heard.  In the context, I think the suspension was reasonable.

However, the DA’s action is another matter.  It is highly unlikely that when someone disrupts a speech in Orange County and is removed, that person is typically prosecuted.  If my supposition is correct, then there is only one reason why these Muslim students were charged … Islamophobia.

A government official acting against individuals because of their race or creed is a violation of the 14^th Amendment of our Constitution as well as Federal law.  There is no place in our society for toleration of such bias.

Indeed, there is no place in our society for the wave of Islamophobia that we have recently witnessed.  Yes, the United States and its citizens have been subjected to terrorist acts by Islamist militants.  But to take the actions of a violent few and transfer guilt or suspicion to all Muslims and treating them as the enemy is not reasoned action; it is not just action. 

Actually, Islamophobia has in an important sense little to do with 9/11.  During the nine years following that tragedy, while Muslims were clearly viewed more suspiciously by many, there was no public uprising like Islamophobia.   No, that occurred only when right-wing demagogues found a cause they could conflate into a roaring blaze … the so-called “Ground Zero mosque.”

The rage in various parts of the country surrounding Muslim communities wanting to build a mosque is embarrassing.  We have freedom of religion in the United States.  What does that mean, if not the right to build a house of worship for your religious observance. 

Muslim Americans are good Americans.  They as a group are no more a threat than German American citizens were during WWI and Japanese American citizens were during WWII.  That there are undoubtedly isolated radicals among them who wish to harm the United States does not alter that fact any more than the Timothy McVeigh’s and anti-government militias in this country could fairly implicate all white conservative Americans in supporting violent acts against the Federal government.

The demagogues of the right paint a world where an enemy is lurking around every corner, whether it’s an Islamist radical or a socialist liberal.  In former years it was a radical African American or a Communist Jew. 

Unfortunately, the followers who listen to these demagogues have swallowed their emotional diatribes hook, line, and sinker.  That is where the threat to our democracy lies, as well as from any person or group, regardless whether on the right or left, who preaches hate towards fellow Americans.  Hate makes rational discourse impossible, and rational discourse is the lifeblood of our democracy.

When the Word is as Mighty as the Sword

There has been much talk recently about whether people can be held accountable for violence if their words didn’t actually incite the violence, but created a climate of hatred and fear that underpinned the violence.  From a legal perspective, certainly they cannot be held responsible.  However, are they morally responsible?

Two recent cases are on point.  The first concerns the incident in Tucson in which a deranged person with strong anti-government feelings shot and killed or injured twenty people.  Many liberals pointed to Sarah Palin’s infamous “crosshairs” map as well as her “reload” language as having some responsibility for the incident.  To which she replied that she abhorred violence and that such an accusation was a blood libel.

But Sarah Palin has a history of fomenting hostility and violence.  The “reload” call and the rifle crosshair map are just more relevant to the current incident.

During the 2008 election campaign and the health care debate, Palin frequently painted Obama as a hostile enemy, not a “real” American, who “palled around with terrorists” and was a socialist.  As a result, her audiences became increasingly hostile, calling out  “terrorist” and “kill him” on numerous occasions.  Not once did Palin repudiate the violence of her audience.

In the second case, a group of Evangelical Christians went to Uganda to press their message that the “homosexual agenda” was evil and that homosexuals sodomize teenage boys.  To put it mildly, they found a receptive audience and the result was a proposed law under which homosexuals would be executed simply for being homosexual. 

While consideration of that bill was put on hold due to international condemnation, a local paper published photos and addresses of key gay activists with an accompanying anti-gay diatribe, after which one was hammered to death in his home.  Here again, the Evangelicals reacted with horror to the crime and said that in no way did they promote or provoke anti-gay violence.

Yes, to paraphrase the NRA, “people kill, not words.”   So Palin cannot be blamed for the Giffords’ shooting and the Evangelicals cannot be blamed for the Uganda murder.  However, their incendiary deceitful words can be blamed for creating an atmosphere of fear and violence towards, on the one hand, Obama and liberal democrats as the enemy, not just opponents, and on the other towards gays as a threatening Satanic force.

A deranged man pulled the trigger and struck the hammer blows, but Palin and the Evangelicals were a force that help point the gun and raise the arm in violence.

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”  With those words, an Army lawyer took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch-hunt.  The time has come to say the same to the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins of the chattering class and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and at times outright falsehoods.   Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics.  But during the past decade, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.

What has become of this country?   Time reported that a “plurality of Arkansans think that Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen.” The health care reform debate was hijacked by fears that the law would create “death panels” and that it contained “Hitler-like” policies. The silly fear that the reform legislation posed the threat of creeping socialism was by comparison quaint.  All, by the way, Republican scams.

These are all incredulous positions that fly in the face of reality.   Why then do so many Americans, not just a small radical fringe, hold these beliefs so adamantly?  The answer is clear … political commentators they respect, such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin, have taken to extreme demagoguery to create a rabid, angry voter block.  Perhaps even more damning, not a single Republican member of Congress has refuted these scurrilous accusations.  Some old-line conservative commentators did call these lies for what they are, but unfortunately, they don’t carry much weight these days.

If actors on the political scene are so ready to pervert the truth, if they feel no ethical constraints, if they have no shame, we have reached a point where the American people need a Truth In Politics law to protect them.

To this suggestion, both liberals and conservatives will no doubt react with horror and raise the flag of the Constitution’s 1^st Amendment right of free speech.   But the right of free speech is not absolute.  Courts have long recognized that one cannot cry “fire” in a crowded theater because of the threat to the public safety that would result.  Inciting to riot is also not protected by the 1^st Amendment. 

More on point is the Truth in Advertising law that protects consumers from deceptive advertising.  Specifically, under Federal law, advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; there must be evidence to back up any claims made; and ads cannot be unfair.  The law is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.

Why is this important exception made to the Constitution’s right of free speech?   The reasoning behind this, and other consumer protection laws, is that the consumer is at a disadvantage vis a vis the businesses that cater to them … in this instance because they don’t have the ability to reasonably determine for themselves the truthfulness of advertising claims and that they therefore might make purchase decisions that either actually cause harm or are otherwise detrimental to them.

If consumers can be protected from false and deceptive advertising, surely the general public should be protected from false and deceptive claims in political statements and advertising that are “likely to mislead and be detrimental.” The danger here is twofold … first, citizens will cast their vote or take other action in ways they wouldn’t if they knew the truth, acting contrary to their interests … such ads are thus another type of fraud used to alter election outcomes and policy decisions; second, these incendiary falsehoods are creating an emotional angry atmosphere making meaningful substantive debate on the issues impossible, thereby stifling the lifeblood of American democracy … the marketplace of ideas.

Those opposed to a Truth in Politics law will say that there is still ample opportunity for individual citizens to determine the truth, that public debate exposes all falsehoods.  That’s the point of free speech.  There’s even a website, factcheck.org, that enables people to check the accuracy of statements made by politicians.

But this argument does not reflect the polarized nature of today’s politics and body politic.  In today’s world, if you are on one side, and someone on the other side says that your leader is lying, there’s no chance of that being heard or believed.   Fact-checking is only done by people who are rational, who are seeking the truth.  Since so much of today’s debate appeals to the emotions, reasoned thought is a scarce commodity.

Also, today, misinformation spreads at such a speed and depth as to make refutation practically ineffective.  The impact of media political commentators, the internet, and You Tube videos is such that a new phrase has been coined … a charge is said to “have gone viral” because it has spread so rapidly and so broadly.   While charges can be, and have been, refuted, there is no chance for the damage to be stemmed.

No, much as it goes against my grain and the grain of most Americans, we have reached that point where to save our democracy, we must enact a Truth in Politics law.  We can no longer depend on ethics or rational thought to save us from the demagogues.