In wake of Stanford free speech fiasco, Duncan models civility, and dean surprises with powerful letter

Abortion rights rally at Stanford Law in 2022.
(Suiren2022 via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0)

After the brouhaha at Stanford Law School in which protestors disrupted a lecture by Trump-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, Stanford Dean Jenny S. Martinez this week stood up for free speech on campus.

There are video and audio recordings aplenty on the internet if you want to learn more about what happened March 9. Here's David Lat with the play by play. For my money, the take-away is that a guest federal judge was treated disrespectfully—dare I say uncvilly?—in an effort to silence him, and even a school administrator joined in the effort. That must have been the dean's take, too, when she issued an apology to Duncan, which drew a disruptive protest of her office in turn.

Martinez's letter is masterful and worth a read for the First Amendment refresher and expression of commitment to academic freedom at even a private school. She put the protesting administrator on leave and pledged mandatory educational programming for the student body on free speech and legal professionalism. 

Frankly, I was shocked. I do not expect deans in today's legal academy to stake out clear and strong positions on, well, anything other than which way the wind is blowing.

Today Duncan appeared at Notre Dame Law School and talked about the incident. His remarks and the Q&A livestreamed and are available on YouTube. To be fair, many renditions of what went down at Stanford report rudeness from both sides, whoever struck the first blow. However so, there was none of that at Notre Dame. Duncan's remarks were unremarkable, but that struck the right tone. The thrust of his assessment was that zealous disagreement is laudable, but shouting down one's opponent or merely vituperating one's ideological adversary does nothing to enrich the marketplace of ideas. Like me here, he lauded Martinez's letter.

In a curious coincidence, and really the only reason I throw my two-cent hat into this ring, I today (at last) finished legendary lawyer Robert Corn-Revere's superb 2021 book, Mind of the Censor and Eye of the Beholder: The First Amendment and the Censor's Dilemma.  The book could not be more on point in the Duncan matter.

Mind of the Censor is chock full of engaging prose and a paean to the freedom of expression in our troubled times. But it's the final chapter that delivers the biggest bang for the buck with a delightful Jeff Foxworthy-esque list of 10 reasons to suspect "you might be a censor."  And apropos of Duncan's comments today, Corn-Revere's number 8 reads, "You Might Be a Censor if You Believe that Silencing Speech You Dislike Is the Exercise of Your Rights."

I wrote just this week about "civility" being deployed as a new, conveniently vague code word to suppress academic freedom. To be clear, I wasn't speaking against civility. The problem arises in the misuse of the word to differentiate speech one wants to hear from speech one does not want to hear.

It's OK to disagree with Duncan, indeed, to disagree vehemently. He spoke today of the challenge all judges face in remaining open to the possibility that they are wrong in their preconceptions. Civility is about respecting other people regardless of agreement or disagreement, and acting ethically, accordingly. Thus, willingness to hear challenges to our thinking is part and parcel of civility and goes hand in hand with an expectation that others will hear our challenges, too.

I'm really not wrong about this.

Google censors opinion condemning private censors

On December 31, Google blocked access to a Savory Tort post from 2019 on free speech and censorship in New Zealand.

I received this message from Google on New Year's Eve:

As you may know, our Community Guidelines (https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy) describe the boundaries for what we allow--and don't allow--on Blogger. Your post titled "NZ prosecutions for sharing Christchurch vid would suppress news, free speech, but worse is empowerment of private censors" [my boldface] was flagged to us for review. This post was put behind a warning for readers because it contains sensitive content; the post is visible at http://www.thesavorytort.com/2019/03/nz-prosecutions-for-vid-sharing-would.html. Your blog readers must acknowledge the warning before being able to read the post/blog.

Why was your blog post put behind a warning for readers?

Your content has been evaluated according to our Adult Content policy. Please visit our Community Guidelines page linked in this email to learn more [link below]. We apply warning messages to posts that contain sensitive content. If you are interested in having the status reviewed, please update the content to adhere to Blogger's Community Guidelines. Once the content is updated, you may republish it at [URL omitted]. This will trigger a review of the post.

For more information, please review the following resources:
Terms of Service: https://www.blogger.com/go/terms
Blogger Community Guidelines: https://blogger.com/go/contentpolicy 

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

Setting aside for a moment the irony of private censorship of a post about private censorship,* I wanted to understand what triggered the block. As the headline indicates, I fretted in the post about New Zealand criminal law being turned against online re-publishers of the horrifying video of mass shooting at a Christchurch mosque in 2019. I wrote that the lack of newsworthiness exception in New Zealand law would be problematic in U.S. First Amendment law, and the prosecution could not withstand analysis under Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). And I wrote some about how the modern internet has posed a challenge to the dated First Amendment doctrine.

Willow Brugh via Wikimedia Commons and Flickr CC BY-SA 2.0

At first, I thought maybe I linked to the objectionable video itself; I had not. I did mention by "dot com" name a problematic website from earlier internet days that was infamous in freedom-of-information circles for hosting gruesome content. But I didn't hyperlink it, and the site no longer exists at that address anyway.

The message from Google referred to the "Adult Content policy."  Here's what the policy disallows:

We do allow adult content on Blogger, including images or videos that contain nudity or sexual activity. If your blog contains adult content, please mark it as 'adult' in your Blogger settings. We may also mark blogs with adult content where the owners have not. All blogs marked as 'adult' will be placed behind an 'adult content' warning interstitial. If your blog has a warning interstitial, please do not attempt to circumvent or disable the interstitial - it is for everyone’s protection.

There are some exceptions to our adult content policy:

• Do not use Blogger as a way to make money on adult content. For example, don't create blogs that contain ads for or links to commercial porn sites.
• We do not allow illegal sexual content, including image, video or textual content that depicts or encourages rape, incest, bestiality, or necrophilia.
• Do not post or distribute private nude, sexually explicit, or non-explicit intimate and sexual images or videos without the subject’s consent. If someone has posted a private nude, sexually explicit, or non-explicit intimate and sexual image or video of you, please report it to us here [hyperlink omitted].

There's nothing remotely sexual about the 2019 post. Nor is there any depiction or description of violence, other than a reference to the mere occurrence of the tragedy, which was well reported in news media with plenty more detail.

Links to The Savory Tort were once banned from Facebook, too, for more than a year. When I inquired, Facebook sent me a form message saying that The Savory Tort violated Facebook terms of service for content. I sent further inquiries, made appeals, etc., but Facebook never clarified how the terms were violated. Indeed, Facebook never responded with other than form messages confirming the ban. For all the hoopla about a "Facebook supreme court" and thoughtful, human review of content, those avenues apparently are not open to the little people such as me.

Ultimately, a former student and labor attorney complained about the ban to Facebook, after he was denied permission to share a link to my blog. He kindly let me know. Subsequently, consequently?, and suddenly, links could be posted. The ban vanished as mysteriously as it had appeared. Not a word from Facebook, then or since.

The Facebook ban came about upon a complaint from someone who didn't like something I wrote, I suspected. That happens. For example, I wrote once about a family law case in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and I was threatened with legal action by the disappointed party. 

It's easy for someone to complain to Facebook or Google Blogger about online content. The complaint is not necessarily reviewed by a real person, or it is and the person is incompetent or indifferent. It's easier to block or take down content than arbitrate a dispute. That's why trolls and publishers have been able to abuse the notice-and-takedown system that has debilitated fair use of intellectual property.

Here, Google said that the post "was flagged to us for review" (my italics) and "has been evaluated." The choice of words, muddling passive voice notwithstanding, suggests that a third party triggered the review. How anyone, even a bot, at Google then could have found adult content, or anything in violation of the content terms, is a mystery to me. I can conclude only that the block was imposed automatically upon the complaint, with no review at all.

I would seek further explanation or ask for a human review, but that, it seems, is not an option. Google offers me the opportunity to have the block reviewed only after I "update the content to adhere to Blogger's Community Guidelines." I see no violation of the guidelines now, so I don't know what to update.

Now let's come back around to that irony, which might not be coincidental.  (Irony and coincidence are not necessarily the same thing, whatever Alanis Morissette would have you believe.)  The dangers of private online censorship was the theme of my post in 2019. The block on my post occurred in December 2022 only weeks after Elon Musk began to censor his critics on Twitter. Musk is still at it, by the way, seemingly having acceded this week to Indian government demands that Twitter censor critics of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. 

At the same time in December that Musk was making headlines with Twitter censorship, the Supreme Court scheduled (for Feb. 21) the oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google LLC (track at SCOTUSblog). The case asks whether internet service providers such as Google enjoy section 230 immunity from liability in the provision of targeted content, such as search results, apart from the conduct of traditional editorial functions, akin to newspaper editors choosing letters to the editor. David McGarry explained for Reason two weeks ago, "The plaintiff is Reynaldo Gonzalez, whose daughter was murdered in a 2015 terrorist attack. [He] argues that YouTube, a Google subsidiary, should face liability because its algorithms recommended terrorist content posted on the platform that Gonzalez says aided the Islamic State."

That's a potential liability exposure that might incline Google to censor first and review later.

Perhaps someone triggered the automatic censorship of a great many online articles about private censorship, hoping to make the very point that private censorship is dangerous. If that's what happened here, I would offer a grudging salute. But I would like to see the point actually made, not just fruitlessly attempted.

At the end of the day, I'm not so broken up about the block, as opposed to a ban like Facebook's, which frustrated me no end, as I could not share content at all with family and friends. A reader who encounters a sensitive content warning wall might be only more interested to know what lies beyond. And my target audience isn't children anyway. 

I figure there's a reasonably good chance that this post will wind up behind a warning wall for having referred to a warning wall. So be it. Anyone interested enough to be investigating a four-year old story of censorship probably will get the ironist's point, and mine.

* My journalism ethics professor at Washington and Lee University in the early 1990s, the late great Lou Hodges, railed against the word "censorship" to describe private action, so would have regarded the term "private censorship" as outrageously oxymoronic. Professor Hodges was steeped in classical learning and recognized that the word "censor" comes from the Ancient Roman word referring to a public magistrate whose responsibilities, on behalf of the state, included counting people and property—thus, "census"—and the enforcement of public morals through what we now call "censorship." To honor Professor Hodges, I long insisted on the same distinction. But in recent years, I have given in to the modern trend to employ the term regardless of the private or public nature of the actor. Professor Hodges could not then have anticipated that we would soon have an "Internet" that looks very much like a public commons, thus reviving the seemingly antiquated First Amendment problem of the company town. The term "censorship" seems to me apt for a world in which transnational corporations such as Google and Meta might as well be governments from the perspective of ordinary people.

Invasion of Ukraine marks six months; Russian propaganda flows despite court OK of EU media ban

#IStandWithUkraine

On July 27, the European Union (EU) General Court upheld a continental broadcast ban on Russia Today (RT).

The EU Council promulgated the ban in March 2022. The Council accused the Russian Federation of channeling propaganda through Russian-funded but purportedly "autonomous" RT in furtherance of a "strategy of destabilisation" of European countries by "gravely distorting and manipulating facts."

The regulation asserted that "propaganda has repeatedly and consistently targeted European political parties, especially during election periods, as well as targeting civil society, asylum seekers, Russian ethnic minorities, gender minorities, and the functioning of democratic institutions."  RT agents are allowed to continue reporting in the EU through research and interviews.

By "broadcast," the regulation is not talking only airwaves. The ban purports to apply across media outlets: "cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications." 

I'm Team Ukraine, but the broadcast ban struck me as a curious development. It sets a troubling "kill the messenger" precedent and seems to conclude that the John Stuart Mill "truth will out" premise is hifalutin hooey.

I'm actually OK with that conclusion. When I teach free speech to students in tort, constitutional, or information law classes, I make a point of demonstrating the many flaws of marketplace theory in the real world. But closing the book on the theory as a matter of supranational regulation is an unsettling further step.

Similarly, it must be conceded that war propaganda is efficacious, notwithstanding its truth or falsity. Research and experience have confirmed that concession time and again since Edward Bernays published his classic treatment, Propaganda, in 1928. I read Bernays for a seminar in journalism school in the wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall. That study first interested me to the confounding problem of expressive liberties in wartime. 

In its July 27 judgment, the Grand Chamber of the General Court navigated these murky waters to conclude that the broadcast ban justifiably impinged on the freedom of expression. In the challenge by RT France, the Council adduced evidence to satisfy the court that RT was in fact a mouthpiece for Russian antagonism to European security. Conducting the necessity and proportionality analysis of European free speech law, long developed by the European Court of Human Rights, the general court concluded that the ban on RT appropriately furthered the twin aims of preserving order in the EU and abating the attack on Ukraine.

The court took pains to describe the RT ban consistently as temporary and to emphasize the context of Russian military aggression, thus signaling that the ruling is grounded heavily in extraordinary circumstances and has limited precedential value.

For therein lies the hazard of effectively suspending civil liberties in a time of exigency but undeclared war. Western EU ministers must be mindful that their critical populist adversaries in Hungary and Poland have restricted media freedom in the name of public order. Proceed down the slippery slope: Should we ban World Cup 2022 coverage by Qatar-funded Al Jazeera?

Characteristically, Russia answered the EU court ruling with a threat of retaliatory restrictions on western media in Russia. But on both sides, media bans might be so much posturing anyway.

RT.com via VPN based in Dublin

The actual efficacy of the ban is doubtful, if for no other reason than the internet's famous resilience to censorship. In a study published in July, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that RT content was still reaching European consumers through alternative domain names and mirror websites.

It might not be even that difficult to find RT. Using my Dublin-based VPN, I just now accessed RT.com directly and through a Google.ie search without impediment.

Today, August 24, marks six months since the invasion. The International Law Section of the American Bar Association (April) is organizing a social media campaign to maintain the visibility of the war in Ukraine. Lawyers are asked to post the Ukraine flag on LinkedIn and Twitter with the hashtag #IStandWithUkraine and tags @American Bar Association International Law Section and @Ukrainian Bar Association on LinkedIn and @ABAInternatl and @Association_UBA on Twitter.

LatAm NGOs propose model of internet platform self‑regulation consistent with human rights

NGOs working on the project, from the report.

Now published online and open for comment are "Contributions for the Democratic Regulation of Big Platforms to Ensure Freedom of Expression Online," a potentially powerful document developed by a coalition of Latin American non-governmental organizations.  Here is the abstract:

This document offers recommendations on specific principles, standards and measures designed to establish forms of public co-regulation and public regulation that limit the power of major Internet platforms (such as social networks and search engines).

The purpose of this effort is to protect users' freedom of expression and guarantee a free and open Internet. Such intermediaries increasingly intervene in online content, through the adoption of terms of service and the application of business moderation policies. Such forms of private regulation affect public spaces which are vital for democratic deliberation and the exercise of fundamental rights.

The proposal seeks to align with international human rights standards and takes into account existing asymmetries related to large internet platforms without limiting innovation, competition or start-up development by small businesses or community, educational or nonprofit initiatives.

The proposal seeks to create a self-regulatory framework that will avert public regulation of the internet.  Needless to say, that will involve the voluntary collaboration of the major players, Facebook, Google, Twitter, et al.  From what I saw of their recent participation in RightsCon in Tunisia, they are game.

I'm all for seeing where the self-regulatory approach takes us, but I worry about two problems.  First, I'm not sure how long the big players will be willing to spend money on social responsibility while unscrupulous competitors bypass self-regulation and continue to reach audience across the technologically egalitarian internet.  Second, as Facebook talks about setting up its own judicial system, I worry about whether we're creating corporate nation-states that will censor anti-majoritarian expression, e.g., perceived "hate speech," with the blessing of NGOs that purport to uphold human rights.  But one step at a time....

Here via Observacom are links to the report in español, português, and English.

Polish court enjoins Facebook 'private censorship': just one sign of new norms in digital rights

Much worry about censorship today focuses on the private sector, specifically and especially the large tech companies--Google, Facebook, Twitter--who have so much power over what we read, hear, and see.  When I was in journalism school, in ethics class in the early 1990s, a student once mentioned the possibility of a news organization withholding a sensitive story and worried that that would be "censorship."  Professor Lou Hodges--a great teacher, great person, since deceased--vigorously corrected the student, saying that censorship by definition must be governmental action. 

Louis Hodges, W&L

Well denotational niceties aside, and with the great respect due to Professor Hodges, I'm not sure the distinction remains salient.  I've been worried about the private sector in the free speech realm for a long while.  I've already posited in print that the greatest looming threat to the freedom of information around the world today is not government, but private corporations, and I've started writing about what can be done (what already is being done in Africa, relative to: the United States, India, and Europe, forthcoming).  Indeed, even the classical distinction between freedom of expression and the freedom of information has lost much salience in the information age.

In the United States, for good historical reasons, our constitutional law draws a sharp line between the freedom of speech and the freedom of information, and also between state action, "censorship," and private action, so-called "private censorship."  Both of those lines have eroded in the real world, while our law stubbornly insists on them.

Foreign constitutional systems, such as the European and African human rights regimes, do not come with the historical baggage that carved these lines in U.S. constitutional law.  These younger systems are proving more adept at navigating the problem of private action that would suppress speech and information.  That flexibility has meant full employment for lawyers in the counsel offices of Big Tech.

It also means that the law of the internet and the law of digital rights is no longer being authored in the United States.

In Poland, a digital rights organization called the Panoptykon Foundation--I assume named for the legendary imaginings of English philosopher Jeremy Bentham--is litigating without shame against Big Tech, Google and Facebook included.  In a suit against Facebook, Panoptykon has taken up for "SIN," an (acronymed appropriately if coincidentally?) anti-drug NGO in Poland.  SIN apparently suffered content-based take-downs and blocks on Facebook.  It's not clear why Facebook (algorithms? censors?) targeted SIN, though TechCrunch speculated that it might have to do with SIN's strategy on drug counseling: more of a "use responsibly" approach than an abstention-only approach.

The action is based on Polish statute, which guarantees freedom of speech and does not get hung up on any American-style state-action limitation.  In June, a Warsaw court ex parte ordered (in Polish, via Panoptykon) Facebook to stop blocking or removing any online SIN content, pending litigation.  Technically the respondent in the case is Facebook Ireland.  But one can imagine that American Facebook execs are on alert, as foreign courts fuss ever less over the public-private distinction.

Professor Hodges might roll over in his grave to hear me say it, but I am confident that "private censorship" will be the free speech story of the 21st century.  America will be dragged into a new world of legal norms in digital rights, willingly or not.  I would rather see us embrace this new world order and confront the problem of a runaway private sector than see our civil rights law relegated to legal anachronism.

Read about SIN v. Facebook at Panoptykon.  Hat tip @ Observacom.

NZ prosecutions for sharing Christchurch vid would suppress news, free speech, but worse is empowerment of private censors

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Pai FCC net neutrality policy steers US wrong way

Today a political cartoon from my brother, Spencer Peltz, in AP Gov at Calvert Hall, where he is student body president.

Probably needless to say, I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly.  India's Telecom Regulatory Authority is headed wisely in the opposite direction.  Read more at Global Net Neutrality Coalition.  Tiered access, a.k.a. internet censorship, is bad for social liberals and economic conservatives.  The only winner under the Pai FCC plan is corporate oligarchy, and that's not free-market capitalism.  Oh, there're other winners, too: people and commercial enterprise every else in the world, India included.  Guess whom that leaves as losers?

Laughing with Lenny Bruce, from schmuck to conscience

 

Kitty Bruce cuts the ribbon on the Lenny Bruce archive at the Brandeis University Goldfarb Library.

There is indecent language in this post.

In the last week of October, Brandeis University hosted a conference, “Comedy and the Constitution,” celebrating the life and work of comedian Lenny Bruce (1925-1966).  The conference marked the accession in the Brandeis University Library of Lenny Bruce’s papers, donated by his daughter Kitty Bruce, who participated in the conference.  The program was organized by Professor Steve Whitfield in American Studies and Sarah Shoemaker in Goldfarb Library Special Collections.  Featured speakers included Christie Hefner, former chairwoman and CEO of Playboy Enterprises, and “outrage” comedian Lewis Black, known to many through his long-running Daily Show segment, “Back in Black.”

My own paper for the academic part of the program concerned free expression and communication regulation.  Specifically, I looked at Bruce's technique of repeating indecent words with the aim of disempowering them.  If one repeats fuck again and again, the tenth repetition doesn’t sting the ear as much as the first.  George Carlin was there at least once when Bruce was arrested for “obscenity” based on the use of discrete words.  There can be little doubt that the experience directly influenced Carlin’s famous “seven dirty words” routine.  This comedic tradition at least tracked a strengthening of free expression in U.S. culture and law—think “Fuck the Draft” on Cohen’s jacket, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)—and might moreover have been a precipitating force.  For better or worse, the power today that attaches to many favorites in the pantheon of bad words is not what it used to be.  Ruth Wajnryb observed in her 2005 book, Language Most Foul, “[N]owadays it takes several fucks to achieve what one lone fuck would have achieved ten years ago.”

The lodging of Bruce’s legacy at Brandeis is a good fit for a couple of reasons.  The university is named for Justice Louis Brandeis, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1916 to 1939.  Brandeis was a key contributor to modern First Amendment law.  In the wake of World War I, he laid the groundwork for a more vigorous model of speech protection than had been known in the prior century.  Even amid the Red Scare, Brandeis recognized that if freedom of speech means anything, then minority perspectives on politics must be protected, however distasteful to the establishment.

Brandeis also was the first Jewish member of the U.S. Supreme Court, an experience that informed his views on social justice and antimajoritarianism.  Judaism played a key role in the founding of (non-sectarian) Brandeis University and remains today an omnipresent part of the university’s social culture.  Bruce was a Jewish comedian, and his cultural experience shaped his comedy.  

A number of academic papers at the conference focused on the role of Yiddish in the comedy of Bruce and also in the wider tradition of Jewish comedy.  I was ignorant on this point.  But presenters made a compelling case that the Yiddish tongue is especially well suited to comedic devices such as double entendre and nuanced word play.  In broad strokes, the particular compatibility of Yiddish with comedy seems a function of the truism that people have always turned to comedy to relieve suffering.

Christie Hefner

In terms of political commentary, Christie Hefner traced a direct legacy from Lenny Bruce to the sharp witted comedy of The Daily Show and Last Week with John Oliver.  I think she’s right.  Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert routinely scoffed at the notion that they produce news, despite serious research showing their influence on popular thinking about politics.  Stephen Colbert’s SuperPAC bits on The Colbert Report spoke volumes on the very real role of money in politics.  John Oliver eschews the label of journalist, but his work at HBO has at least raised awareness, if not effected reform, on critical social issues such as net neutrality.

Someone at the Brandeis conference pointed out that some of our attribution to Lenny Bruce of a desire to make the world a better place--by cursing of all things--has got to be a posthumous fiction.  I think that’s right too.  Bruce was just a person, not a legend.  He wanted to sustain himself with his flair for the funny, to fill seats at shows, and to take care of his family.  Arrests for obscenity--the more absurd the state's case, the better--were good for business.

I’m not troubled by any dissonance in the legend and the man who was Lenny Bruce.  The Old Testament is replete with the sea changes of unlikely messengers.

Lewis Black