NPR Incoherently Lashes Out at “Free Speech”

Matt Taibbi's latest article, with which I completely agree: "NPR Trashes Free Speech. A Brief Response: In an irony only public radio could miss, "On the Media" hosts an hour on the perils of "free speech absolutism" without interviewing a defender of free speech." An excerpt:

The guests for NPR’s just-released On The Media episode about the dangers of free speech included Andrew Marantz, author of an article called, “Free Speech is Killing Us”; P.E. Moskowitz, author of “The Case Against Free Speech”; Susan Benesch, director of the “Dangerous Speech Project”; and Berkeley professor John Powell, whose contribution was to rip John Stuart Mill’s defense of free speech in On Liberty as “wrong.”

That’s about right for NPR, which for years now has regularly congratulated itself for being a beacon of diversity while expunging every conceivable alternative point of view.

I always liked Brooke Gladstone, but this episode of On The Media was shockingly dishonest. The show was a compendium of every neo-authoritarian argument for speech control one finds on Twitter, beginning with the blanket labeling of censorship critics as “speech absolutists” (most are not) and continuing with shameless revisions of the history of episodes like the ACLU’s mid-seventies defense of Nazi marchers at Skokie, Illinois.

The essence of arguments made by all of NPR’s guests is that the modern conception of speech rights is based upon John Stuart Mill’s outdated conception of harm, which they summarized as saying, “My freedom to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.”

Because, they say, we now know that people can be harmed by something other than physical violence, Mill (whose thoughts NPR overlaid with harpsichord music, so we could be reminded how antiquated they are) was wrong, and we have to recalibrate our understanding of speech rights accordingly.

This was already an absurd and bizarre take, but what came next was worse. I was stunned by Marantz and Powell’s take on Brandenburg v. Ohio, our current legal standard for speech, which prevents the government from intervening except in cases of incitement to “imminent lawless action”:

"MARANTZ: Neo-Nazi rhetoric about gassing Jews, that might inflict psychological harm on a Holocaust survivor, but as long as there’s no immediate incitement to physical violence, the government considers that protected… The village of Skokie tried to stop the Nazis from marching, but the ACLU took the case to the Supreme Court, and the court upheld the Nazis’ right to march.

POWELL: The speech absolutists try to say, “You can’t regulate speech…” Why? “Well, because it would harm the speaker. It would somehow truncate their expression and their self-determination.” And you say, okay, what’s the harm? “Well, the harm is, a psychological harm.” Wait a minute, I thought you said psychological harms did not count?"

This is not remotely accurate as a description of what happened in Skokie. People like eventual ACLU chief Ira Glasser and lawyer David Goldberger had spent much of the sixties fighting the civil rights movement. The entire justification of these activists and lawyers — Jewish activists and lawyers, incidentally, who despised what neo-Nazi plaintiff Frank Collin stood for — was based not upon a vague notion of preventing “psychological harm,” but on a desire to protect minority rights . . . .

.

If you are wondering whether Taibbi is accurately portraying this NPR discussion, I invite you to listen to it here. NPR's conversation is stunningly muddled and incoherent. None of the guests show any meaningful familiarity with the work of John Stuart Mill. None of the participants demonstrate a working understanding of the First Amendment or the case law interpreting it. The result is that most of the discussion is aimed at straw men. And fully in line with what NPR has done, it stirred in a discussion of the "implicit bias" test in this free speech discussion, the perfect cherry on top for NPR's increasingly woke audience. This is what passes for a meaningful discussion at NPR.

Continue ReadingNPR Incoherently Lashes Out at “Free Speech”

The Importance of Free Inquiry at the Academy

Heterodox Academy has released this 3-minute video arguing for something that 20 years ago would have puzzled most people.

This video advocates for

  • Free Inquiry at the Academy
  • Encouraging the Life of the Mind, and
  •  The Use of Evidence when taking positions, rather than relying on mere feelings.

But this is 2021, and we are, in many places, continuing our descent into a new Dark Ages where an increasingly acceptable way to win an argument is to silence one's opponents, using economic threats and brute force if necessary, even at the Academy.

I fully support the following ideas of Heterodox Academy:

.

I fully support the above ideas in my role as a law professor and in my personal life. As an attorney affiliated with Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), I am willing to push back against persons and organizations violating these principles where they involve violations of civil rights, including violations of the First Amendment.

In fact, FIRE has now established a Faculty Legal Defense Fund to protect the speech of faculty members.  Here is how it works:

Public college and university faculty who face a threat of sanction by their institution or have been punished for expressive activity—whether it’s instruction, scholarship, or speaking on issues of public concern—can submit matters for FLDF consideration. They can do so through FLDF’s dedicated 24-hour Hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533), or submit a case online. Our staff quickly review the matter and, if it falls within FLDF’s mandate, connect the faculty member with one of the experienced nearby lawyers in the FLDF network for assistance.

Continue ReadingThe Importance of Free Inquiry at the Academy

The Plight of Popularizers

When I think of excellent popularizers, I first think of Carl Sagan (astronomy), but there are others, such as Thomas Sowell (economics). How difficult is it to be an excellent popularizer? Damned hard, according to (linguist) John McWhorter, an excellent popularizer in his own right. Sowell's work was the overall topic on this recent episode of The Glenn Show, featuring McWhorter and Glenn Loury, joined by Jason Riley of the Manhattan Institute. Here is what McWhorter had to say about difficult task of popularizers:

What people don't always know is that if you devote yourself to being a popularizer, to a certain extent, you're not taking the easy road. And I have never heard anybody say to me, as a linguist popularizer, that the popularizing isn't real work. So I'm not saying this out of some sort of pique. If anybody says that about me, and they must have, they've never said it to me. I get nothing but respect to my face, but I think a lot of people think popularizing isn't as hard as doing the real thing.

Having tried to popularize, it isn't just that you take away the detail and write stuff down. A lot of people who think "I could sit down and write a book in plain English, you know, explaining only what the ordinary person can understand. But I choose to do the real thing and write in tapeworm sentences and write with exquisite detail, etc." A lot of those people, I very humbly say, you have to have them sit down with, metaphorically, a blank piece of paper, and you are going to write about what you do. And this is the thing: Decide what you're going to put in terms of what the layman can understand, what is going to be a subtraction, what you're going to share with, you know, 55 specialists. But then not only write down what the layman can understand, but make it so that the layman will actually read it. It's one thing to put it on paper, but come up with a book that more than two people are going to read and then tell me that I'm just a "popularizer" and that I'm doing the easy thing because, frankly, not everybody can do that.

I know, there's some very noble popular linguistics books written by very smart and very nice people. But I must admit somewhere towards the middle, I find places where I think the reason that this book hasn't gotten around is because this person doesn't happen to have that particular knack. I remember one, I'm not going to mention it where he gets to a concept that is a little hard, you can get it across to people. But frankly, you'd have to know how. But he says, "Get some coffee. This is hard." And I thought "No, you don't tell them to get some coffee. You figure out how to get it across to them without them drinking any damn coffee!" That sort of thing. It means that you have to work at it. With Tom, it's hard work, what he's done, especially when you can read it as an ordinary person, I think.

Continue ReadingThe Plight of Popularizers

What Motivates Trump Voters?

Many people who call themselves liberal have written on FB that (and several told me in person) that they despise Trump voters and that they need not ever have a conversation with anyone who voted for Trump. Why? Many of them give this as the entire reason: "Trump voters are racist."

This reasoning is distressing to me because I (I identify as an independent) communicate with more than a few people who voted for Trump. I voted for Clinton and Biden. I acknowledge that there are some racists in the Republican party (I also believe that there are many racists among woke liberals), but to sum up that the entire motivation of every Trump voter as "racism" is over-simplistic and usually false. That's why I found this Tweet Thread by Darryl Cooper interesting. Is there any reason other than "racism" for being a MAGA voter? Cooper offers many such reasons. It's too bad many liberals refuse to take time to consider these before launching attacks on Trump voters. Glenn Greenwald offered an introduction to Cooper's thoughts. Here's an excerpt:

[W]e asked Cooper to elaborate on his influential thread, with a focus on what led him to these observations about prevailing MAGA sentiments and why he believes they are important for people to understand. As Cooper notes, he does not share all of the perceptions and beliefs he is conveying, although he shares many of them. Instead, based on the recognition that most media outlets are incapable of understanding let alone accurately describing the views of a group of people they view with little more than unmitigated contempt, condescension and scorn, he believes it is imperative that people understand the actual reality of what is motivating so many Trump voters in their views, perceptions and beliefs — regardless of whether each particular belief is accurate or not.

We also believe this understanding is vital, which is why we are happy to publish Cooper’s essay. It should go without saying that, as it true of all of our articles published on Outside Voices -- which we treat as an op-ed page -- our publishing of this article does not signify agreement with all of its claims, but only our belief that it is a viewpoint worth airing.

Here are a few excerpts to Cooper's analysis. You can read the entire thread here and here. You can listen to it here:

Trump supporters know - I think everyone knows - that Donald Trump would have been impeached and probably indicted if Robert Mueller had proven that he’d paid a foreign spy to gather damaging information on Hillary Clinton from sources connected to Russian intelligence and disseminate that information in the press. Many of Trump’s own supporters wouldn’t have objected to his removal if that had happened. Of course that is exactly what the Clinton campaign actually did, yet there were no consequences for it. Indeed, there has been almost no criticism of it.

Trump supporters had gone from worrying the collusion might be real, to suspecting it might be fake, to seeing proof that it was all a scam. Then they watched as every institution - government agencies, the press, Congressional committees, academia - blew right past it and gaslit them for another year. To this day, something like half the country still believes that Trump was caught red-handed engaging in treason with Russia, and only escaped a public hanging because of a DOJ technicality regarding the indictment of sitting presidents. Most galling, conservatives suspect that within a few decades liberals will use their command over the culture to ensure that virtually everyone believes it. This is where people whose political identities have for decades been largely defined by a naive belief in what they learned in civics class began to see the outline of a Regime that crossed not only partisan, but all institutional boundaries. They'd been taught that America didn't have Regimes, but what else was this thing they'd seen step out from the shadows to unite against their interloper president?

Cooper is not making a case that all of these things are true. His mission was to understand the mindset of MAGA advocates. It's too bad that so many people who identify as "liberal" would rather simplify MAGA voters as racist without considering any of these things. They would rather attack straw men. For those people like me who fear for our democratic project, this approach is dysfunctional and unproductive.

Continue ReadingWhat Motivates Trump Voters?