Jonathan Haidt’s Dire Prognosis for America

Jonathan Haidt is a Co-Founder of Heterodox Academy, which encourages viewpoint diversity in American Colleges and universities. Haidt was recently interviewed by Jacob Hess of Desert News. He is not in a mood to offer false hope.  Here's an excerpt:

If we do not make major changes soon, then our institutions, our political system, and our society may collapse during the next major war, pandemic, financial meltdown, or constitutional crisis.” Although always pointing to possible steps we might take, Haidt adds that there is “little evidence to suggest that America will return to some semblance of normalcy and stability in the next five or 10 years. . . .

Standing up and defending others is hard for most. Everyone is afraid for their reputation. Everyone hates being shamed. What we most need is for leaders of institutions to stand up. That has been the spectacular failure of the late 2010s — that leaders of universities, of The New York Times, of our knowledge-centered institutions, have failed to stand up for the mission of their institutions. I don’t expect everyone to care about the whole truth, but professors should — and any academic institution should. They have a duty to stand up for the end or purpose of their institution. And if they can be made to know that the great majority of people support them, I think they would be more likely to stand up.

Continue ReadingJonathan Haidt’s Dire Prognosis for America

The Mass Media’s Distorted Lens When It Decides Who to Blame for Mass Murders

Mass murderers often follow various public personalities and causes. Sometimes, they commit their mass murders in the name of those public personalities and causes. Who is to blame when that happens? It depends on whether news outlets approve of the personality or the cause. Glenn Greenwald explains in an article titled "The Demented - and Selective - Game of Instantly Blaming Political Opponents For Mass Shootings: All ideologies spawn psychopaths who kill innocents in its name. Yet only some are blamed for their violent adherents: by opportunists cravenly exploiting corpses while they still lie on the ground." Here is an excerpt:

To be sure, there have been a large number of murders and other atrocities carried out in U.S. and the West generally in the name of right-wing ideologies, in the name of white supremacy, in the name of white nationalism. The difference, though, is glaring: when murders are carried out in the name of liberal ideology, there is a rational and restrained refusal to blame liberal pundits and politicians who advocate the ideology that animated those killings. Yet when killings are carried out in the name of right-wing ideologies despised by the corporate press and mainstream pundits (or ideologies that they falsely associate with conservatism), they instantly leap to lay blame at the feet of their conservative political opponents who, despite never having advocated or even implied the need for violence, are nonetheless accused of bearing guilt for the violence — often before anything is known about the killers or their motives.

In general, it is widely understood that liberal pundits and politicians are not to blame, at all, when murders are carried out in the name of the causes they support or against the enemies they routinely condemn. That is because, in such cases, we apply the rational framework that someone who does not advocate violence is not responsible for the violent acts of one's followers and fans who kill in the name of that person's ideas.

Indeed, this perfectly sensible principle was enshrined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1982 unanimous free speech ruling in Claiborne v. NAACP. That case arose out of efforts by the State of Mississippi to hold leaders of the local NAACP chapter legally liable for violence carried out by NAACP members on the ground that the leaders’ inflammatory and rage-driven speeches had “incited” and “provoked” their followers to burn white-owned stores and other stores ignoring their boycott to the ground. In ruling in favor of the NAACP, the Court stressed the crucial difference between those who peacefully advocate ideas and ideologies, even if they do so with virulence and anger (such as NAACP leaders), and those who are “inspired” by those speeches to commit violence to advance that cause. “To impose liability without a finding that the NAACP authorized — either actually or apparently — or ratified unlawful conduct would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment,” ruled the Court.

This principle is not only a jurisprudential or constitutional one. It is also a rational one. Those who express ideas without advocating violence are not and cannot fairly be held responsible for those who decide to pick up arms in the name of those ideas, even if — as in the case of James Hodgkinson — we know for certain that the murderer listened closely to and was influenced by people like Rachel Maddow and Bernie Sanders. In such cases, we understand that it is madness, and deeply unfair, to exploit heinous murders to lay blame for the violence and killings on the doorsteps of our political adversaries. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Mass Media’s Distorted Lens When It Decides Who to Blame for Mass Murders

Rethinking Citizens United

This is the latest installment of a fascinating exchange of ideas at FIRE's First Amendment News. This installment was written by Ira Glasser, former Executive Director of the ACLU. This conversation was provoked by Florida's repeal of Disney's special tax status in response to Disney's criticism of Florida's Parental Rights in Education bill, misnamed the “Don’t Say Gay” law by many on the left.

I'm repeatedly struck by the ill-thought tactics of many people who try to mess with the First Amendment.  These tactics usually amount to "Free speech for me, but not for thee."  The First Amendment is a boomerang, however.  It is an equal-opportunity provision that doesn't (and shouldn't) care about who is speaking or the content of particular speech.  Your well-intended tweaks and restrictions of the First Amendment (here, in the form of Citizens United) can come back and hit you upside your head. What follows is an excerpt of Glasser's latest comment:

But two liberal law professors who had spent 12 years vigorously opposing the Citizens United decision — my longtime colleagues Burt Neuborne and Erwin Chemerinsky — leaped into the fray supporting the First Amendment right of the Disney corporation to express its views on that legislation and opposed the state’s attempt to retaliate. When I chided them for it in light of their long opposition to Citizens United, they responded with a blizzard of legal distinctions that, however interesting and important, were disconnected from the political realities that resulted in the broad law that Citizens United struck down, and unresponsive to my question.

Buried in that blizzard, however, was the answer to my question, almost as an aside: “Citizens United,” they now declare, “was rightly decided on its facts.”

Floyd Abrams then replied, saying he was startled to discover that they now said they believed that “Citizens United was rightly decided on its facts” because for 12 years, or ever since Citizens United was decided, they had vigorously and consistently criticized that decision as having been wrongly decided.

I, too, was startled. What had changed? Certainly, the facts of that case hadn’t changed since the case was decided. Moreover, if Burt and Erwin had ever before proclaimed that Citizens United had been rightly decided in the many public fora where they discussed that decision, I missed it, and apparently, Floyd Abrams did, too.

So if the facts of the case haven’t changed, what has?

We can only speculate.

But in any case, we now have two accomplished liberal law professors saying: 1) that Citizens United was rightly decided; and 2) that a business corporation like Disney has a First Amendment right to express its views on a contentious law.

I need to fall on the sword here too. I got caught up in the anti-Citizens United wave years ago and posted several regrettable posts (at this site) indicating positions I no longer hold.  The turning point for me was a very slow and careful read of the Citizens United opinion combined with sober consideration of impossible real world challenges we would have faced had Citizens United had been decided the opposite way.

Continue ReadingRethinking Citizens United

Things the Left-Leaning Media Refuses to Discuss

I enjoy listening to Tara Henley's podcasts, even though she unable to get along well with her former employer, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Here is how Bari Weiss describes her departure from CBC:

The story of Tara Henley is the story of countless liberals. Until recently, they were the ones pushing everyone else to be more tolerant, more understanding, more open-minded, more compassionate. Then, something happened — call it ideological succession or institutional capture or the new illiberalism — and, all of a sudden (or so it felt to them), they found themselves to the right of their friends and colleagues. Their crime? Refusing to abandon their principles in the service of some radical, anti-liberal dogma. If you’ve been reading this newsletter, you know well what we’re referring to. (See under: Paul Rossi or Maud Maron or Dorian Abbot.)

And so it was with Henley, an accomplished Canadian journalist whose book, “Lean Out: A Meditation on the Madness of Modern Life,” kind of says it all. Last week, she resigned in style from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and struck out on her own here on Substack.

Henley's most recent article offers a list of many of the issues that left-leaning news media currently refuse to cover. The title to her article is "Meet the press: Why much of the media looks and sounds much the same."

Here’s a good place to start: Ask yourself how many liberal media pieces you’ve seen over the past two years that, say, interrogate COVID restrictions critically (especially early on, with school closures, lockdowns, and mask mandates). Or evaluate Black Lives Matter as a political movement, assessing its strengths and weaknesses. Or offer opposing viewpoints on transgender athletes in women’s sports; or mass immigration; or diversity, equity, and inclusion philosophies, trainings, or policies. Or acknowledge the excesses of #MeToo, or prejudice against the white working class. Or present critiques of identity politics. Or explore downsides of puberty blockers and gender transition surgery for teens; or delve into the growing censoriousness on social media and in education, Hollywood, the arts, and NGOs. Or probe inner city gun violence. Or reflect the positive sides of masculinity. Or talk about God. Or reference anything that’s currently deemed a conspiracy theory in non-derogatory terms (see: the lab leak theory). Or express genuine curiosity on the reasons behind the rise of independent media, whether that’s Joe Rogan or Substack.

This, I would argue, is the no-fly list. These are the tripwires.

I’ll admit that, months after leaving legacy media, I still feel an instinctive trepidation even running down this list — that’s how ingrained this is.

I would like an offer a concurring perspective from my work as a consumer attorney. Based on cases I have handled, the best way for a merchant to rip off a customer is to tell some truths (to gain some trust) but refuse to tell the full story. This is the same technique that an auto dealer uses when telling you that the brakes of a used car are "excellent" while simultaneously failing to disclose that the same car was in a flood or that the car's frame consists of two half-frames welded together in a chop shop. Failing to disclose material facts is such a powerful way to rip people off that almost every state has a consumer fraud statute that allows individuals to sue a business for financial damages resulting from such violations while advertising or selling services or merchandise (see this chart, which is helpful as an overview, even though from 2009).

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThings the Left-Leaning Media Refuses to Discuss