On Free Speech, "I Choose Low Expectations"

From an excellent N.Y. Times op-ed by Greg Lukianoff (FIRE):

If you're a free-speech lawyer, you face a choice: Either expect to be disappointed by people of all political stripes — or go crazy. I choose low expectations.

Again and again, political actors preach the importance of free speech, only to reach for the censor's muzzle when it helps their side. If, like me, you defend free speech as a principle rather than invoke it opportunistically, you get distressingly accustomed to seeing the same people take opposite positions on an issue, sometimes within the space of just a few months….

And he closes (after offering a good deal of detailed evidence),

I don't like having to make a case for human rights such as freedom of speech by appealing to self-interest; these are supposed to be rights whose importance transcends one's personal needs. But for political partisans, it's often the only argument that cuts through. So here's my practical warning: The weapon that you reach for today will be used against you tomorrow…. [T]he point of the principle of free speech is that how we respond to ideas we don't like is ultimately not about our opponents' rights — it's about ours.

Comments

[Krayt]

I don't like having to make a case for human rights such as freedom of speech by appealing to self-interest; these are supposed to be rights whose importance transcends one's personal needs. But for political partisans, it's often the only argument that cuts through.

Partisans, especially politicians, really aren't gonna like this reason. The benefit of the First Amendment isn't that there's value in every last goober drooled from some yokel's mouth, it's in denying dictators and other power agglomerators one of the best clubs in the golf bag of tyrants: censorship.

They will happily give lip service to free speech, but faceted this way, the correct way, for anyone who knows 0.02% of human history or more, they will see it as thwarting their power desires, and so won't like it.

Yes, sirs and madames, it's to thwart you. That is the benefit of the First Amendment.

[ah....Clem]

Partisans, especially politicians, really aren't gonna like this reason.

Yeah, and if the political partisans think that they will remain in power indefinitely, it's not a reason at all for restraint.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Perhaps equally to the point, if the aforesaid political partisans fear thwarting, some will be encouraged to efforts to remain in office by whatever means look most promising, especially including censoring their opponents.

[ah....Clem]

It's important to distinguish between official censorship by the government and criticism by individuals.

Since many people are confused by this, the blurring of the two is being used to advance actual government censorship. As Ken White explains at the Popehat Report

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It has been since time immemorial.

[ah....Clem]

Well, the concept of freedom of expression being a fundamental human right is fairly new in the greater scheme of things. As are almost everything else in the bill of rights.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Well golly, I meant the concept of lack of principles boomeranging back. Karma, you know.

[Riva]

Regarding official censorship, let's not ever forget the Biden administration. As Francis Menton reminds us in the Manhattan Contrarian:

The four years of the Biden presidency were a terrible low point for the protection of freedom of speech in the U.S. A web of government agencies and allied NGOs sprang up with remarkable rapidity to identify and ban disfavored speech, almost always of conservatives. As just a few examples: the White House itself pressured social media platforms to suppress disfavored speech on politically sensitive topics like Covid and climate change; the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency collaborated with universities and NGOs like the Stanford Internet Observatory to get disfavored speech banned or suppressed; the Department of Homeland Security formed a Disinformation Governance Board to coerce social media companies to suppress speech deemed “disinformation”; and the FBI conducted wide-ranging investigations of Republican politicians and organizations. The entire enterprise got the accurate nickname of the Censorship Industrial Complex.

[BrotherMovesOn]

Whoooosh

[not guilty]

Thank you for the Popehat link. That is a thoughtful article.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Clem — Thanks for that link. It showed me how to make an argument I have been working at for years, without getting near White's persuasive power. Especially commenters too young to remember the Berkeley Free Speech Movement should use the link and take a look.

It has been tiresome and discouraging, seeing how lessons taught by experience to the point of general acceptance in the 60s and 70s, now have to be re-taught from scratch. It is hard to fully appreciate the social cost of re-teaching lessons to the young of every generation. Then you get older and find out no one grows up knowing automatically what older folks learned by hard experience.

[AmosArch]

Smirking Jimmuh Kimmel is back pulling faces on the air in record time and leftoids are still talking about this nothing (by Iger for insubordination) as if it was the only breach of free speech in the history of the world. The Kimmelicide must have been worse than 2 billion. No make that 4 trillion Charlie Kirk assassinations put together. Whoever Charlie Kirk and whatever an assassination is...

Meanwhile this is what our champion of free speech himself thinks about the concept.

https://youtu.be/dSUN_vmDItg?feature=shared&t=701

[ah....Clem]

...leftoids are still talking about this nothing (by Iger for insubordination) as if it was the only breach of free speech in the history of the world.

And rightoids are still talking about Kirk's assassination as if it were the only assassination in the history of the world.

Which is to say that minimizing the FCC's breach of 1A is a nothingburger because there have been other examples of government censorship makes about as much logical sense as minimizing Kirk's assassination because there have been other assassination.

You know, it's possible to think both of these things are bad.

[AmosArch]

Maybe I'm crazy here but I think an assassination is much worse than a couple day suspension of an employee by his boss for insubordination which might have been theoretically but probably was not practically caused by government pressure (that Kimmel himself strongly approved of in the past).
And that if one event should predominate in the discussion it should be the former and not the latter as is the case right now.

But if the latter does predominate it should be made clear that Kimmel himself on camera multiple times strongly approved of the actions far worse than what happened to him on multiple occasions and is not this shining templar of free speech riding in white armor and a noble steed to save the day that he is being portrayed as now.

[not guilty]

AmosArch, Disney/ABC's suspension of Jimmy Kimmel was ignoble. Brendan Carr's hamhanded thuggery is the more important issue here: “We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the F.C.C. ahead.”

And your attempt to change the subject is deplorable.

[David Nieporent]

Maybe I'm crazy here

Nope. Just dishonest scum.

but I think an assassination is much worse than a couple day suspension of an employee by his boss for insubordination

What is the purpose of lying so blatantly? There was no insubordination. He was suspended because the head of the FCC threatened ABC. You know this. You can't even pretend otherwise because — unlike the complete fabrication about nonexistent insubordination — the threat was public.

Tucker Carlson was fired by his employer. That is not a first amendment issue. Jimmy Kimmel was suspended because the government threatened his employer; that is a first amendment issue. And the "it was only for a couple of days" is perhaps even more dishonest than the original lie you told, becaus ignores the fact that it was only for a couple of days because of the outcry.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Kimmel himself is still talking about Charlie Kirk as if it were the most important assassination in the history of the world.

Are you calling Kimmel a rightoid?

[Michael Ejercito]

There are Supreme Court precedents affirming FCC censorship

[Josh R]

Such as?

[Currentsitguy]

The Janet Jackson "nip slip" comes to mind.

[Josh R]

CBS won in the lower courts (on other-than-First-Amendment concerns) and SCOTUS denied cert.

[ah....Clem]

The moron who made that video doesn't seem to understand the difference between government censorship and private actions.

And don't bother with the BS that "ABC was just making a business decision."

[AmosArch]

What government censorship did the government do to kick Kimmel off the air?

You think Fox and the social media companies that kicked trump off felt zero government pressure?

BEHOLD The party of zero interference and pressure folks

https://thepostmillennial.com/dhs-leaks-starting-in-2020-dhs-began-meeting-with-twitter-facebook-wikipedia-and-more-monthly-to-coordinate-content-moderation-efforts

[ah....Clem]

What government censorship did the government do to kick Kimmel off the air?

The chair of the FCC threatening to take away the broadcast licenses of ABC affiliates. "We can do this the hard way or the easy way." Do try to pay attention.

You think Fox and the social media companies that kicked trump off felt zero government pressure?

You mean immediately after the events on January 6th, 2021? When Trump was still President of the United States?

[AmosArch]

The chair of the FCC threatening to take away the broadcast licenses of ABC affiliates. "We can do this the hard way or the easy way." Do try to pay attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

He was suspended(slapped on the wrist) for insubordination when he announced he was going to throw gas on the flame. Iger and his cronies for all their faults are expert professionals. Not children. They know Carr can't do shit. Or at least not get away with it as has been abundantly reinforced here. And at any rate Kimmel is back already so what is he still doing up on the cross you are carrying?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You mean immediately after the events on January 6th, 2021? When Trump was still President of the United States?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Are you playing dumb? So you admit you guys are lying when you accused Reagan of interfering with the Iranian hostage crisis because an incoming administration has absolutely zero power until they are officially sworn in? Not to mention since this was Trump's first term where he tried to play nice and left the old boy's clubs almost completely unchanged entire segments of the government were virulently opposed to him (ie Milley). Not to mention all the deplatforming when they were officially in power...

[Sarcastr0]

WEST BERLIN-Ronald Reagan urged Americans "not to put two and two together" regarding the coincidental release of Iran's 52 American hostages on the day of his presidential inauguration. "I do not want you to notice that something extremely fishy is probably going on here,” Reagan said Tuesday. "As the leader of the free world, I urge you to believe that my hard-line stance against terrorism was Khomeini's sole motivation to free the hostages, rather than any covert dealings between the in the White House and the Iranian government and my new administration.” "Please," Reagan added, "do not put two and two together.” Vice President and former CIA chief George Bush, whose shady Mideast connections were not officially used to broker an arms-for-hostages deal, agreed. "With new leadership in the White House and the hostages free after a 444 day ordeal, this should be a time of national healing and renewal. Now is not the time for any suspicions which, however true, may reflect negatively on the new president," said Bush, speaking from his secret underground command post in Tehran.

https://www.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/11w7rr8/the_onion_has_always_been_golden/

[Jazzizhep]

When I read a possible suspicious quote, I don’t immediately demand a cite. I try to look it up first.

No where can I find what you purport to be Reagan’s words. It’s a complete fabrication,

Hey, at least Reagan got 52 people in return. Obama gave hundreds of millions to Iran for a single trans deserter. Which is better than giving guns to the cartels in exchange for bupkis, zip, zilch, nada (if you don’t count dead bodies).

[David Nieporent]

When I read a possible suspicious quote, I don’t immediately demand a cite. I try to look it up first.

No where can I find what you purport to be Reagan’s words. It’s a complete fabrication,

OMG. Jazzizhep has just discovered that The Onion is not a news outlet.

Also, I'm glad he doesn't immediately demand a cite when the poster provided the link.

[David Nieporent]

You think Fox and the social media companies that kicked trump off felt zero government pressure?

Yes. Also, Trump wan't on Fox, so he couldn't have been kicked off it. And who was president when social media companies kicked Trump off?

BEHOLD The party of zero interference and pressure folks

Who was president in 2020?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The decision to suspend Kimmel was made before Carr got up that morning.

[ah....Clem]

And you believe this because...

Meanwhile, in the realm of evidence we have this news report from the day:

The abrupt decision by the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, came hours after the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, assailed Mr. Kimmel and suggested that his regulatory agency might take action against ABC because of remarks the host made on his Monday telecast.

Now, it's possible that the decision was made prior to Carr's comments and only announced afterwards. But AFAICT, your claim is just evidence-free wishcasting.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Because ... David Henderson is pretty level-headed, and he posted a timeline from Sean Malone.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/174102609

My favorite line from John Maynard Keynes (but I’m not sure he even said it) is: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

In this case, it’s not so much that the facts changed as that I became aware of facts.

Sean Malone, a friend on Facebook, challenged my claim that Jimmy Kimmel was fired because of FCC chairman Brendan Carr’s threat. He has allowed me to post this. I’ve made a few changes in tense. All times below are in EDT. Here’s Sean:

[ah....Clem]

Ok. That's an interesting speculative timeline that may even be correct. It does sound plausible; the money quote seems to be:

Carr wants to show Trump that he’s a good soldier. If he sits back and Kimmel gets canned anyway, Carr doesn’t get credit. But if he jumps on it, he might get credit.

I

[David Nieporent]

Um, there wasn't a single fact in there supporting the premise.

[OpinionsVary]

Doesn't matter how good the trifle looks, as soon as someone takes a shit in it that's all anyone is going to talk about.

[Roger S]

Colbert and Kimmel are still on the air, with low ratings, using public airwaves, and spouting anti-Trump rants all the time.

[hobie]

Amos 'whatabout' Arch. Did you notice how the two private hillbilly broadcast companies chose to deny all their viewers Jimmy Kimmel's show from now on? Kinda looks like censorship...don't it?

[ah....Clem]

Kinda looks like censorship...don't it?

If they're doing it to curry favor with the WH to approve whatever corporate mergers are under consideration - arguably, but difficult to prove.

If they're doing it to avoid having their broadcast licenses revoked, as was explicitly threatened by the head of the FCC, definitely.

If they think it's in their business interest to air something else, then no. Of course, if what they are airing generates fewer viewers and lower ad revenues one has to question what the "business interest" is.

[hobie]

kinda looks like censorship...don't it?

And, BTW, them broadcasters are hillbillies under no threat from anybody. They unilaterally chose to silence Kimmel. So what's the excuse to deprive their audience of his show?

[Krayt]

And, BTW, them broadcasters are hillbillies under no threat from anybody. They unilaterally chose to silence Kimmel. So what's the excuse to deprive their audience of his show?

'member when the first instances of modern cancel culture manifested? IIRC, a teen Zendaya appeared on the red carpet with long corn rows. Some Hollywood show host quipped, "I'll bet she smells like patchouli and weed!"

One Twitter storm + grovel later, fired.

Making a druggie joke about a teen's fancy hairstyle was rude and in bad taste, but no where as bad as mocking an assassination.

The latter had a government twist on it, but that aside, as a purely social ostracism effort, which you acknowledge was at least partly the case here.

Please list what levels of social offence warrant private corporate cancellation, and which do not.

I do not have issues with either as private, including corporate, effort, but government arm twisting I've written reams about.

[David Nieporent]

One Twitter storm + grovel later, fired.

Um, Rancic wasn't fired. And since the FCC wasn't involved, this has nothing to do with anything.

[John F. Carr]

"I've got friends in low places." – Garth Brooks

[Stupid Government Tricks]

It's also important to note that ALL principles work that way, not just free speech. Whatever principles you compromise to get your enemies will be turned against you when your enemies get their turn in power.

[Sarcastr0]

Do you consider yourself very principled?

[NvEric]

The value of free-speech is in self-control and more so truth. Living by false words degenerates the mind. False words are a poison which false thoughts produce. Free-speech is designed for truth dispersion. Dispensing poison is not free-speech.

Inherent is: truth and free-speech are the same thing, and lacking reason to understand this destroys both.

[Vryedni]

Not a big fan of the First Amendment, huh?

[hobie]

Free speech is good. What would you say about a broadcaster that all of a sudden muted a show so their viewers couldn't see it?

[ah....Clem]

Well, broadcasters do that all the time. You can argue all you want that NBC cancelling Star Trek after three seasons was the wrong move, but there's no 1A implication there.

I'm not going to argue for a "Must Carry" rule for Sinclair (re Kimmel) any more that I would argue for a similar rule for facebook or Xhitter.

[hobie]

Well, broadcasters do that all the time.

Jeezus you people are dumb. I mean...how did you come to rationalize shit like this?

[ah....Clem]

I suppose what led me to "rationalize" it is a career in broadcasting, where I saw shows come and go all the time.

Agree that Sinclair's carriage choices are problematic - and not airing Kimmel is a drop in the bucket compared to their other problematic editorial choices - but what's the alternative? Require CBS to continue producing Mr. Ed episodes?

If you want me to criticize Sinclair for not airing Kimmel Live, consider it done. If you want me to argue that the government should force them to carry it, count me out.

[Daddyhill]

My fear is that the current most dominant political tribes are doing something worse than invoking the First Amendment opportunistically. That would be adopting a mindset that thinks in terms of who does and doesn't deserve some of the rights and privileges supposedly available to all.

This is a profoundly selfish view. We've seen this for decades with respect to health care. We are one of very few countries that don't provide free or affordable health care for everyone, which is why I didn't tack on "un-American" after "selfish".

The US does not consider health care a human right, so there are no amendment-adjacent rules governing it's discussion. Freedom of speech, on the other hand, is so deeply embedded in our Constitution and our social fabric that I have to wonder why we're suddenly talking about it all the time. Didn't we all attend a high school of some sort, in which we learned that other people's free expression must end where our noses start? After Citizens United aren't we all aware that corporations can do whatever the hell they want, including regulating who can and can't use their social media platforms? Well-funded outfits both left and right have the ability to take their business elsewhere, or they would have if The Bigs wer-en't always squeezing out or devouring potential competitors.

Look, anyone who was alive and moderately well informed at the time of the March on Skokie should be able to see things more clearly. The truth is, folks, is that if you want to stage a well-organized, lawful, and non-violent march of the White Knights of the Western World in, say, Austin, you could do that, and the ACLU would be with you in court if need be. But only so long as the distance you maintain between you and your neighbor's nose.