Churchhill may have been right at the time he said that but at this time I have little or no confidence that the Supreme Court will “do the right thing.” Unfortunately, now, our so-called justices are moved by mega-corporations like little pieces on a chessboard..
My comment above may seem very negative, and it is. But it is my belief that capitalism is like a cancer that has metastasized into every part of our body, politic, our courts and our individual lives. It will take some willingness to think far outside the box, and create a new system where capitalism only has its place in small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures. Control over our economy, our political system, our courts and our lives can no longer be surrendered to mega Giants and a government infested by them.
Let's step WAY outside the box. Let's start where the problem lies: the accumulation of capital into individual hands of such large quantities that it may be used as an instrument of power and influence. Change the monetary system. Make money a non-circulating medium of exchange that has no value of its own, cannot be accumulated and is cancelled and reissued periodically to each individual - a guaranteed income to provide the necessities of life. OF course, any attempt to put this across would put the planners in a box - for good.
Steve, I like where you’re headed but I have one suggested modification. Rather than talk about money, let’s speak of purchasing power. The value of money goes up and down with inflation and deflation, whereas the purchasing power to buy a loaf of bread, for example, is constant. One other modification might be that everyone is guaranteed a job which will provide them. The minimum purchasing power to have their basic needs met. Beyond that those who add more value to the company, the cooperative, or the system earn greater purchasing power as an incentive to do better. This way, creativity and hard work are rewarded with increased purchasing power after all the other workers have sufficient purchasing power to buy their necessities. Only those who are unable to work due to health, age or other infirmities, would receive their purchasing power with much less work required. But if you give everyone the opportunity to earn their way, it increases self esteem and provides incentive.
I'm with you, Marc. I only used "money" as it is the concept most easily grasped. "Money" as it exists is simply an imaginary token, a human artifice with no correlation to the physical world. Rather than "purchasing power", I prefer access to goods and services. This is the true measure of a healthy economy and society. It is not necessarily hinged to owning things, just having them available any time we choose/need to use them. We accumulate entirely too much junk that goes virtually unused, idling away in attics or self-storage or - yes, idling away (or not) in driveways and parking lots, creating a tremendous drain on resources and energy.
As for "incentive", for far too long we have equated that with monetary profit, and shoved true initiative and creativity into the dank corner of obscurity. Pride in pure accomplishment has been subjugated to having physical things to measure status. I like to use this example: Suppose you worked in a factory that produced the highest-quality, most luxurious automobiles possible, and you knew that YOU would have access to one any time you chose (how many workers at BMW or Tesla can claim that?) Would you not have the motivation to see that every one was of the best quality possible?
A real-world example would be present-day "boat clubs", in which you pay an annual fee and get to choose whatever type of vessel available, without the cost or hassle of maintenance or upkeep.
If I'm going too fast, feel free to throw a speed bump out there to bring me back closer to our present system of operation.
I agree, Marc. Given the toxic 'conservative' majority currently seated, the SC simply cannot be counted on to do the 'right thing' because their idea of doing the right thing is only that which grants them wealth, favors, immunity and protection for their crimes against 'We The People'. Perhaps the 'right thing to do' is for the Constitution to be amended to impose term limits on SC justices so mistakes can be corrected in our lifetimes.
Sure but how does this address a rogue president and his cadre of corrupt un-Justices who assume the 'right' to disregard any law that serves all Americans?
I must disagree. Our "so-called justices" are not "little pieces". They are more the queens, that can shift positions readily to protect the corporate king. WE are the "little pieces", the expendable pawns, limited in our movements and to be sacrificed at the whim of the king and queen to maintain their positions on the board.
Can we move the Supreme Court to northern Alaska until such time as they sign the same ethical commitment as other Federal judges? Why do we tolerate the clearly corrupt judges?
The court can only solve half the problem: even if Microsoft is labelled a monopolist & measures are put in place to keep it from illegally leveraging its monopoly (e.g. by forcing it to publish specifications & to keep from subverting competition), the public still has to do its part i.e. carefully consider the merits (and not sustain Microsoft with its $!)...
It's no coincidence that those platforms monetize speech (rather than charging users directly); if the public was more thoughtful about its speech (and less willing to entrust its voice to the platforms) then we wouldn't be talking about "mega-corporations"...
You're right about the rules "to protect children" of course in Florida. Because the truth is, book bans, and all the rest apply to the education and control of children. Exactly what this country needs is a Murdoch takeover for a FOX internet. And how can we tell? Because these "protect the children" legislators will not do a SINGLE thing to make public schools safe from mass shootings, or pay their parents living wages to they don't have to live in cars, or protect children from infectious diseases, or offer meals to school children when school is not in session. That's how we know their talk is all balderdash.
IMO, states that cater to faux-religious and/or self-declared righteous minorities should have the leaders of these factions impeached, imprisoned for treason or removed from offices on which they maintain a chokehold before they impose a War Between The States on us all. You don't offer rabid dogs a hand in peace or you will find that hand looking like a pulled pork sandwich.
I wear my t-shirt picturing Donald Trump in jail and "Rapist" emblazoned below quite often in Austin. Sometimes I get some sour looks but no problems so far.
The case is a bit more complex. The two state are suing, claiming that "conservative" views are being discriminated against because the tech giants refuse to permit the posting of at least some political and social lies that they deem harmful. IMO, they don't block nearly enough of them. But at least some get blocked, and that's a good thing. Still, lots is not, and that's not so good.
The First Amendment was not written to protect lies. And some forms of speech that are lies are clearly not protected by the First - Perjury. False advertising. Fraud. Slander, libel, and defamation. And more. And, given that money is speech (but don't get me started on that), counterfeiting. Political lies are potentially of far greater import and consequence than any of those, and should not be protected speech. The two states, though, feel that freedom of speech should be absolute and they should be able to force the platforms to publish everything without regard for veracity or consequence.
The Court should take account of the EU's various regulations of the Internet's content. It's not perfect, but it's a vast improvement over both what the companies currently do, and the Wild West anything-goes anarchy scenario the states want to impose.
Texas and Florida Republican state governors and legislators are also amongst the most eager to ban books and publications that don’t reflect their worldview. A guiding principle of democracy used to be that you could disagree with someone’s beliefs, but defend to the hilt their right to say them. Now, it seems that only extends to those that they do agree with. They are a mass of contradictions: ‘my body, my choice’ applies to vaccinations and face masks, but not abortions. Sanctity of life applies to a foetus before it develops into a viable baby, but not to anyone in the cross-hairs of an assault rifle. It makes no logical sense, but millions of Americans believe it.
The Data Governance Act (DGA) was approved by the European Parliament on 6 April 2022 This sets up a legal framework for common data spaces in Europe which will increase data sharing in sectors such as finance, health, and the environment.
With Russia using social media platforms to spread misinformation about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, European policymakers felt a greater sense of urgency to move the legislation forward to ensure that major tech platforms were transparent and properly regulated, according to The Washington Post.
I understand that the EU has stricter regulations in this matter. In this country, our courts should not legislate. As an aside, they have on several occasions at times favoring one side over another, but like hockey penalties in overtime, it evens out. If it were up to the Cons, it would be the legislative branch that would create laws designed to break up big tech and the financing to provide legal defense to the executive branch when the inevitable lawsuit happens. Under Democrats and possibly others, the power already exists in the Executive branch where the process could begin if only the those in the FDA had the fortitude and financing to do so.
In short, Democrats would need control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government to even begin the break up process.
Just keep in mind that the result of such break up will be the rise of interest based social media. The lies and the propaganda will not stop.
There can be a vertical breakup that seperates layers of the platforms. There may be a tech layer of providing basic connectivity and computing power (data centers) that is regulated as a common carrier. This was the direction used by the FCC with net neutrality under Obama but was rolled back by 45. Net neutrality did not go far enough but it was a start.
But the problem lies squarely with the first amendment which is not comprehensive, and doesn't properly reflect the society after over 2 centuries since inception.
A liberal, democratic society needs - *must* -maintain it's stability, viability and wellbeing of all of its members. Propaganda that leads to epidemics, violence, consequences of mass anti science centiments must be circumvented. There's no absolute, unencumbered, uncompromised freedom in this physical universe, in or outside of a society, and perfect freedom is a balance between freedom to and freedom from. This must be reflected in a constitution, explicitly, and with remedies. Instead it seems there's no bottom to yakitrickery in "interpreting" the existing one by a very undemocratic "court" of Supreme Creepers.
Professor Reich hinted at the same, i.e. in suggesting 'common carrier' designation would result in regulation; there are plenty of curbs on speech for other media (as came to light during the 'Cambridge Analytica' scandal) - so if social media shouldn't get a free pass then the court need only ensure that common sense boundaries (e.g. no funny business before an election) apply to social media as well. (A radical rethink via legal precedent - from today's Supreme Court - seems unlikely.)
PS: The business import (and consequences) are profound enough that the executives surely had wilful observation suggested to them (someone like Sheryl Sandberg couldn't have not suggested it); all the more reason that how the companies have been run since is nothing short of criminal.
What conservatives want to do is promote conservative free speech, and be the sole arbiter of what that speech is. We've already seen how years of victimhood grooming has wrought conservative bias and shamelessness tn trying to inject that bias into every institution. The only thing worse for a democracy than ignorance, is the willful ignorance we see play out daily in the US House of Representatives.
I read the amicus briefs in the Colorado 14th Amendment case, they provided logical concise arguments in support of Colorado, listening to the questioning from the bench, you would never think they had been read, they were completely ignored. Now I get it that you can have a different point of view than me, but I used to think that your arguments were what carried the day in our court system. Now it seems that we have judges that know how they want to rule before the case is tried, they seem to be looking for a reasoning that they can sell, that is anything but blind justice.
I totally agree but at the same time totally believe it will never happen and there is no such thing as “free enterprise” Never was and never will be. Look at human history. Name an era, a country, a system where true free enterprise ever existed.
Never will be any utopia but I have known small business men that practiced ethically and made good
livings...Local Is the Future is a book that shows how and where free enterprising is done. Anti-trust laws and regulations are our only way forward if we have much of a future
Agreed. I do everything I can to support small, local enterprises, but ultimately they are not participating in free enterprise. Nothing in the universe is free. Something or someone always pays a negative price in a transaction. As for our future, I don’t see it. Humanity is a giant oil tanker that needs to change direction 180 degrees immediately. Giant oil tankers are not capable of doing that.
Not always a negative price in a transaction....thats why I recommend the book..give up the ship by getting on smaller boats...I agree that once a businesses grows beyond one location one community free enterprise is lost...SMALL is beautiful and you do indeed have to look to find examples such stories are more abundant than shown on mainstream news...we are hammer by news stories only about the foul enterprises.
Again, I agree. Small is the way to go, and you are right, not all transactions cause someone to lose out. In today’s world, it is rare though. I only feel good about commerce and free enterprise when I know where the goods come from, who produces them and that no one was taken advantage of in the process. That’s a difficult thing to find these days.
Yes, you have to look for it, but as Helena's book shows it does exist- and in my travels I have seen it. Helena is no idealist but a realist- she wrote the postscript to This Civilization is Finished by Rupert Read.
Paul Street is extremely critical of capitalism like you and I he has some excellent insights like Chris Hedges, but Paul turns to a communistic revolution...When I learned that I pointed out to him that Communism has a centralized monolithic corporate structure to it. Decentralization and putting restriction on growth going more to a regenerative eco-economics is the way to go. He got mad and booted me off his sight for saying so!
He is filled with reactionary hate...with endless criticisms rather than looking for what actually works and is good here in this world.
Yes, but I don’t see the connection between breaking up the giant platforms and suppressing propaganda. Instead of a few big platforms telling lies, we could have many small platforms telling lies.
There will always be lies but the sickness of monopolies-Giant corporate power influencing everything done by government is the first primary problem...unless you would like Musk to own everyone and everything...he is getting there. Like I posted today: If the likes of Bezos and Musk are not held to be wrong, if they don't get broken up with anti-trust laws then the qualified corporate totalitarianism, we have today will go far closer to an unqualified total corporate totalitarianism. And our planet of finite resources will be ruined by our unlimited endless growth model becoming reality.
Yes, indeed circular is what we destroyed when we wiped out our Indigenous peoples. Stan, two outstanding books on modern circular small businesses are Regenesis by George Monbiot and Local is the Future by Helena Norberg-Hodge
I've often thought the internet should be regarded like the airwaves, belonging to the people, but regulated such that access can be revoked if it is abused. A mechanism such as the fainess doctrine would be a monumental undertaking but highly beneficial.
All this flows from the Supreme Court’s defining certain physical actions, such as donating money, as “speech,” which is the slipperiest of slopes.
But there’s a tremendous contradiction in the court’s own application of what does, and does not, qualify as protected speech. In their notorious Citizens United (2010) decision, they ruled that the giving of money to political candidates and campaigns is speech protected by the First Amendment, BUT in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) held that giving material assistance to terrorist groups, which cannot NOT include the transfer of funds, is a punishable federal crime and obviously not protected speech or any kind of speech.
It is a measure of the political hackery of the Court’s majority that they have ignored the critical need to reconcile their rulings in the two cases, as giving money is giving money and it is a physical act, not speech.
Thank you Professor Reich, Big Tech IS a common carrier, they are privately owned, but publicly used utility. I'm not sure the current Supreme Court is up to ruling in favor of citizens as opposed to their money train. I strongly disagree with their decision to throw out our law on protecting children, especially since it included such evil practices as child trafficking and online bullying. I don't care if the parents are full participants in these practices, parents have no more "right" to damage or injure their children than anyone else. Reasonable laws to prevent extreme should never be overturned never be overturned in favor of adult greed - at least I think Mark Zuckerberg is sort of an adult
You had me until your closing paragraphs. This is 2024, Trump is still walking free, and Clarence Thomas still sits on the Supreme Court. Reasonable choices and doing the right thing aren't in the US playbook right now. If I were a nail biter, I'd be typing this with a stylus held in my teeth.
Kinda apples & oranges; the fact that "information wants to be free" & that there's always a technical solution to restrictions doesn't mean that uncontrolled activity (and abrogation of norms) isn't a public policy problem, let alone one requiring a legal solution. (Network utility increases with the square of the number of users; bad stewardship on the part of oversized, unaccountable technology companies isn't a justification for the loss of the public's utility in use of a given network - as those companies & their bits are all on American soil.)
This argument over the 1st Amendment drives me bonkers, It is used as whipping tool by everyone.
The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the right to speech or assembly.
It says nothing about free speech.
The problem is that the "founders" lived in an agrarian society, that was hardly advanced from the dark ages. The Romans had more advanced technology, most of which disappeared when the Romans withdrew from England and Europe and the barbarian tribes moved into the power vacuum.
As I see it speech is not a constitutional right, only that congress cannot pass a law abridging it.
This is a double edged sword, and depends on who is wielding it, thus how it is used and who it is used against, the same with any laws or court decision as to who or what has the right to use or censor speech.
That may be your belief, but it is long standing and commonly accepted that free speech is a right, trying to convince the country that your interpretation is the right one will be an uphill battle at best.
The problem with the 1st Amendment is the same with the 2nd amendment.
The founders distrusted a standing army, because armies in England and Europe were paid by barons and dukes and used to overthrow the crown.
But they failed to realize that the government that they created did not resemble the royalty of England, though there were some royalists, Hamilton among them, though you would think not, but Hamilton wanted a perpetual presidency
Militia's were conscripted, for short duration, one to three months, to fight the Red coats, and the Continental Army was disbanded, save for a cadre, after the treaty of Paris in 1783.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to create a well regulated (and trained) militia that could be called to arms to defend the country, well the idea fell flat in 1812, militia forces could not stand up to British force., and they met minimum resistance when they marched into Washington D.C.
The well regulated militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is each states National Guard, and thus the 2nd Amendment is now obsolete.
This amendment is worshiped by government hating, neo confederates, racists ranchers and conspiracy theories who project onto the government their desire to be fascist dictators.
I could not agree more with your last paragraph. You may have studied this issue more than I have, but it seems to me James Madison was very taken with the idea that the citizens would be allowed personal arms. Whether you call it a belief or an opinion mine is that the founders were not of one mind and after considered debate wrote an ambiguously worded amendment as a compromise..
Madison held his view only because at that time and in that era, the biggest threat to governance was a standing army. They feared a standing army, there was still a rather fresh memory of Cromwells model army.
They believed that a WELL REGULATED militia, meaning one that had been trained, and organized was essential to national defense. They were misguided, because the militias could not stand up to regular Red coats, but evidently the founders didn't learn their lesson. They did keep a small, drilled cadre from the veterans of the Continental Army.
The states have since create there own well regulated militia's, they are called the National Guard and thus there is no longer any use for armed citizens, except to kill each other, but America has been infected with this irrational fear of libs, gays, people of color using the government to take over their lives and property, and thus are obsessed with owning guns and ammo to fight them libs, them nigrahs, them queers, them immigrants who are vermin pollluting the blood of THEIR white Christian country.
And I expect that if Trump wins the election, he will turn loose his cult to take revenge on those libs, nigrahs, queers, and immigrants. And you will have the America you apparently desire.
I have no beliefs, opinions yes and many, beliefs none. You are correct that there is a common assumption about free speech, but assumptions are not facts.
I have no intention of trying to convince anyone, much less the country that the Constitution does not mention or address free speech.
I have no illusions about being a superman, a savior, I have no aspirations as such and if I did, at age 85, with deficits I would not live long enough.
Lee, thank you for your wisdom and insight. I, too, have no beliefs and many opinions. One of my opinions is that speech is free and the speaker must accept the consequences of their words. If I yell fire in a movie theater and someone dies under the feet of the crowd trying to escape, then lock me hp and throw away the key. If I stand on the corner and yell “Trump is a disgrace to the human race” I should be allowed to walk home and not be prosecuted by anyone.
"Speech is not an absolute": if your corner stumping happens to incite a small riot, e.g. outside a Trump rally or the RNC convention, then your speech would be halted & you would not walk home (and would certainly expect prosecution); as such, speech is free - but commonly abridged.
It had been established in some quarters that the 2nd amendment was created to keep the South in at the nation’s founding. The South wanted militias in order to maintain control over their slaves.
That aside, the 1st Amendment is clear, regardless of what people’s “common understanding” is.
Government shall make no law limiting speech. Therefore, any attempt by any state, federal or municipal entity to proscribe speech is prohibited. Corporations have speech rights. These rights allow them to proscribe speech on their platforms. In my case against Amtrak, that was their defense. We overcame this by showing that Amtrak was not a private entity, but part of the government.
I do believe that public ownership of fb, Google, etc is the only solution. But that would require a revolution and is not something that liberals would endorse.
The 1st Amendment says nothing about the government, only that Congress shall make no law, and Congress is not the government, only a branch.
The series of Supreme Court rulings that give corporations personhood and considers money to be speech is an aberration brought on by corrupted Judges. The law clerk who wrote the head note in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific had been himself a RR executive, this case is used and has been used as a basis for the ruling that corporations are people, it has led to Buckley v Valeo, 2nd National Bank of Boston V Belotti, which culminated in Citizens United and in each instance there was deception and deference such as the Chevron Deference
The problem with FB and Google being owned by the government, is who holds the reins of government.
Better that it be in private ownership and be regulated and restricted from subverting society.
"Common carriers"--like whores spreading microbes! You either legalize it, or you outlaw it, If you legalize it, you must set the rules and guidelines. If someone suffers as a result of misinformation, the source must be held accountable, and the platform must keep records.
I agree that Big Tech should be broken up but there's an answer that can be implemented while that long and difficult battle rages: The US Government builds state-of-the-art tech platforms for public use, just as we built the Interstate Highway infrastructure in the 1950's. A (relatively) free-access government sales platform won't address free speech concerns. What it WILL do is allow smaller businesses access to huge markets that they can currently only reach through Amazon, which drives down profits for the little guy while growing more powerful every day. Because of the razor thin profits made by small companies selling on Amazon, they're also forced to raise their prices elsewhere. I know there will be a lot of resistance to the idea of "public online infrastructure" but it's something certainly worthy of discussion.
It’s an interesting idea and analogy. I’d compare it more to the concept of a different government program, the Post Office. The Post Office delivers physical items physically. The internet delivers to your electronic devices data, news and commentary, and access to commerce (think of it as the electronic version of a printed Sears catalog). The Post Office also disallows certain items based upon safety. Almost everything is covered, meaning envelope and boxes, so contents remain private. Now most people think the internet is private, but in reality, once it’s out there, it’s out there. But in the same way the Post Office doesn’t allow certain items for safety or transfer of items that violate other federal laws. The electronic post office (aka internet) can also ban child pornography, aiding in human trafficking, hate speech that incites violence and insurrection, conspiracies that violate laws.
You might as well say you don't care about education because you're out of school, this has profound effect on society as a whole and one way of another its going to have an effect on you.
Corporations enjoy fictional personhoods, and all their rights are embodied in their charters, not the Constitution. Furthermore, no person, real or fictional, is entitled to violate the rights of others.
Corporate charters gave the legal status of person hood to corporations so they could buy, own and sell assets, sue and be sued. No other person hood characteristic were embodied in the laws that created those charters. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United constitutes gross negligence.
If the courts have determined that corporations are people, that is the law until it is made not the law. Your assertion that it is otherwise does not make it so by fiat. That is just sentiment.
It seems that We the People need to enlighten "the courts." Abject servility to business interests on the part of some judges is undermining the legitimacy of the entire judiciary.
I agree the court will rule in favor of the corporations. Either hamfisted outcome is unsatisfactory as it doesn't deal with the need for Congress legislation on the issues.
I know my opinion is fairly worthless here, but I sure do! Only about 30% or so living in America are anti-life, and almost 75% agree on all PROGESSive legislation.
I don't know about you, but that gives ME hope for President Biden's second term!
Churchhill may have been right at the time he said that but at this time I have little or no confidence that the Supreme Court will “do the right thing.” Unfortunately, now, our so-called justices are moved by mega-corporations like little pieces on a chessboard..
My comment above may seem very negative, and it is. But it is my belief that capitalism is like a cancer that has metastasized into every part of our body, politic, our courts and our individual lives. It will take some willingness to think far outside the box, and create a new system where capitalism only has its place in small businesses and entrepreneurial ventures. Control over our economy, our political system, our courts and our lives can no longer be surrendered to mega Giants and a government infested by them.
Let's step WAY outside the box. Let's start where the problem lies: the accumulation of capital into individual hands of such large quantities that it may be used as an instrument of power and influence. Change the monetary system. Make money a non-circulating medium of exchange that has no value of its own, cannot be accumulated and is cancelled and reissued periodically to each individual - a guaranteed income to provide the necessities of life. OF course, any attempt to put this across would put the planners in a box - for good.
Steve, I like where you’re headed but I have one suggested modification. Rather than talk about money, let’s speak of purchasing power. The value of money goes up and down with inflation and deflation, whereas the purchasing power to buy a loaf of bread, for example, is constant. One other modification might be that everyone is guaranteed a job which will provide them. The minimum purchasing power to have their basic needs met. Beyond that those who add more value to the company, the cooperative, or the system earn greater purchasing power as an incentive to do better. This way, creativity and hard work are rewarded with increased purchasing power after all the other workers have sufficient purchasing power to buy their necessities. Only those who are unable to work due to health, age or other infirmities, would receive their purchasing power with much less work required. But if you give everyone the opportunity to earn their way, it increases self esteem and provides incentive.
I'm with you, Marc. I only used "money" as it is the concept most easily grasped. "Money" as it exists is simply an imaginary token, a human artifice with no correlation to the physical world. Rather than "purchasing power", I prefer access to goods and services. This is the true measure of a healthy economy and society. It is not necessarily hinged to owning things, just having them available any time we choose/need to use them. We accumulate entirely too much junk that goes virtually unused, idling away in attics or self-storage or - yes, idling away (or not) in driveways and parking lots, creating a tremendous drain on resources and energy.
As for "incentive", for far too long we have equated that with monetary profit, and shoved true initiative and creativity into the dank corner of obscurity. Pride in pure accomplishment has been subjugated to having physical things to measure status. I like to use this example: Suppose you worked in a factory that produced the highest-quality, most luxurious automobiles possible, and you knew that YOU would have access to one any time you chose (how many workers at BMW or Tesla can claim that?) Would you not have the motivation to see that every one was of the best quality possible?
A real-world example would be present-day "boat clubs", in which you pay an annual fee and get to choose whatever type of vessel available, without the cost or hassle of maintenance or upkeep.
If I'm going too fast, feel free to throw a speed bump out there to bring me back closer to our present system of operation.
OMG guys! It's too scary outside my box. Jumpin back in and takin my baby blanket with me for protection! YIKES 🤪!!
Your comment makes sense--it's based on real experience.
Spot on, Marc.
Your opinion is respected.
I agree, Marc. Given the toxic 'conservative' majority currently seated, the SC simply cannot be counted on to do the 'right thing' because their idea of doing the right thing is only that which grants them wealth, favors, immunity and protection for their crimes against 'We The People'. Perhaps the 'right thing to do' is for the Constitution to be amended to impose term limits on SC justices so mistakes can be corrected in our lifetimes.
And make sure the addition or removal of SC judges is no longer dependent on the vagaries of fate.
Every president gets to appoint 1 new SC judges every 2 years. Furthermore an 18 year period after which the judge moves to a lower court.
Sure but how does this address a rogue president and his cadre of corrupt un-Justices who assume the 'right' to disregard any law that serves all Americans?
I must disagree. Our "so-called justices" are not "little pieces". They are more the queens, that can shift positions readily to protect the corporate king. WE are the "little pieces", the expendable pawns, limited in our movements and to be sacrificed at the whim of the king and queen to maintain their positions on the board.
" The Worst Possible System (democracy) Except For All Others Tried" . . .Agreed, but the Proof can deeply try one's soul . .. .
Can we move the Supreme Court to northern Alaska until such time as they sign the same ethical commitment as other Federal judges? Why do we tolerate the clearly corrupt judges?
The court can only solve half the problem: even if Microsoft is labelled a monopolist & measures are put in place to keep it from illegally leveraging its monopoly (e.g. by forcing it to publish specifications & to keep from subverting competition), the public still has to do its part i.e. carefully consider the merits (and not sustain Microsoft with its $!)...
It's no coincidence that those platforms monetize speech (rather than charging users directly); if the public was more thoughtful about its speech (and less willing to entrust its voice to the platforms) then we wouldn't be talking about "mega-corporations"...
Looking (2/29) like you were right on this, Marc.
See my response
You're right about the rules "to protect children" of course in Florida. Because the truth is, book bans, and all the rest apply to the education and control of children. Exactly what this country needs is a Murdoch takeover for a FOX internet. And how can we tell? Because these "protect the children" legislators will not do a SINGLE thing to make public schools safe from mass shootings, or pay their parents living wages to they don't have to live in cars, or protect children from infectious diseases, or offer meals to school children when school is not in session. That's how we know their talk is all balderdash.
What about keeping you advertisements out of this forum?
The weeing people are pisssed. Just kidding.
IMO, states that cater to faux-religious and/or self-declared righteous minorities should have the leaders of these factions impeached, imprisoned for treason or removed from offices on which they maintain a chokehold before they impose a War Between The States on us all. You don't offer rabid dogs a hand in peace or you will find that hand looking like a pulled pork sandwich.
SirK...wearing this T-shirt in TX would be providing target practice.
I wear my t-shirt picturing Donald Trump in jail and "Rapist" emblazoned below quite often in Austin. Sometimes I get some sour looks but no problems so far.
The case is a bit more complex. The two state are suing, claiming that "conservative" views are being discriminated against because the tech giants refuse to permit the posting of at least some political and social lies that they deem harmful. IMO, they don't block nearly enough of them. But at least some get blocked, and that's a good thing. Still, lots is not, and that's not so good.
The First Amendment was not written to protect lies. And some forms of speech that are lies are clearly not protected by the First - Perjury. False advertising. Fraud. Slander, libel, and defamation. And more. And, given that money is speech (but don't get me started on that), counterfeiting. Political lies are potentially of far greater import and consequence than any of those, and should not be protected speech. The two states, though, feel that freedom of speech should be absolute and they should be able to force the platforms to publish everything without regard for veracity or consequence.
The Court should take account of the EU's various regulations of the Internet's content. It's not perfect, but it's a vast improvement over both what the companies currently do, and the Wild West anything-goes anarchy scenario the states want to impose.
Texas and Florida Republican state governors and legislators are also amongst the most eager to ban books and publications that don’t reflect their worldview. A guiding principle of democracy used to be that you could disagree with someone’s beliefs, but defend to the hilt their right to say them. Now, it seems that only extends to those that they do agree with. They are a mass of contradictions: ‘my body, my choice’ applies to vaccinations and face masks, but not abortions. Sanctity of life applies to a foetus before it develops into a viable baby, but not to anyone in the cross-hairs of an assault rifle. It makes no logical sense, but millions of Americans believe it.
Well said! It is beyond my comprehension that more people don’t see this hypocrisy.
Yes, and the EU's approach Is much better than trying to attack the problem with antitrust laws, which are not really a good fit.
The Data Governance Act (DGA) was approved by the European Parliament on 6 April 2022 This sets up a legal framework for common data spaces in Europe which will increase data sharing in sectors such as finance, health, and the environment.
With Russia using social media platforms to spread misinformation about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, European policymakers felt a greater sense of urgency to move the legislation forward to ensure that major tech platforms were transparent and properly regulated, according to The Washington Post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation
It's a decent enough start.
The Digital Services Act is starting to force change. Twitter may leave Europe because of the requirements.
Details on the DSA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act
I understand that the EU has stricter regulations in this matter. In this country, our courts should not legislate. As an aside, they have on several occasions at times favoring one side over another, but like hockey penalties in overtime, it evens out. If it were up to the Cons, it would be the legislative branch that would create laws designed to break up big tech and the financing to provide legal defense to the executive branch when the inevitable lawsuit happens. Under Democrats and possibly others, the power already exists in the Executive branch where the process could begin if only the those in the FDA had the fortitude and financing to do so.
In short, Democrats would need control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government to even begin the break up process.
Just keep in mind that the result of such break up will be the rise of interest based social media. The lies and the propaganda will not stop.
There can be a vertical breakup that seperates layers of the platforms. There may be a tech layer of providing basic connectivity and computing power (data centers) that is regulated as a common carrier. This was the direction used by the FCC with net neutrality under Obama but was rolled back by 45. Net neutrality did not go far enough but it was a start.
There is a significant need for transparency in the algorithms. The EU has started to address that with the Digital Services Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act).
Vertical. Excellent point!
Finally something well thought through.
But the problem lies squarely with the first amendment which is not comprehensive, and doesn't properly reflect the society after over 2 centuries since inception.
A liberal, democratic society needs - *must* -maintain it's stability, viability and wellbeing of all of its members. Propaganda that leads to epidemics, violence, consequences of mass anti science centiments must be circumvented. There's no absolute, unencumbered, uncompromised freedom in this physical universe, in or outside of a society, and perfect freedom is a balance between freedom to and freedom from. This must be reflected in a constitution, explicitly, and with remedies. Instead it seems there's no bottom to yakitrickery in "interpreting" the existing one by a very undemocratic "court" of Supreme Creepers.
Professor Reich hinted at the same, i.e. in suggesting 'common carrier' designation would result in regulation; there are plenty of curbs on speech for other media (as came to light during the 'Cambridge Analytica' scandal) - so if social media shouldn't get a free pass then the court need only ensure that common sense boundaries (e.g. no funny business before an election) apply to social media as well. (A radical rethink via legal precedent - from today's Supreme Court - seems unlikely.)
PS: The business import (and consequences) are profound enough that the executives surely had wilful observation suggested to them (someone like Sheryl Sandberg couldn't have not suggested it); all the more reason that how the companies have been run since is nothing short of criminal.
What conservatives want to do is promote conservative free speech, and be the sole arbiter of what that speech is. We've already seen how years of victimhood grooming has wrought conservative bias and shamelessness tn trying to inject that bias into every institution. The only thing worse for a democracy than ignorance, is the willful ignorance we see play out daily in the US House of Representatives.
To be honest, I don’t trust the supreme court to make the right decisions any more.
I am concerned that the supreme courts, recent decisions prove you correct.
I read the amicus briefs in the Colorado 14th Amendment case, they provided logical concise arguments in support of Colorado, listening to the questioning from the bench, you would never think they had been read, they were completely ignored. Now I get it that you can have a different point of view than me, but I used to think that your arguments were what carried the day in our court system. Now it seems that we have judges that know how they want to rule before the case is tried, they seem to be looking for a reasoning that they can sell, that is anything but blind justice.
What we have now is not blind justice, but justices, blinded by slavish adherence to ideology and lust for money.
breaking giant tech withe anti trust laws is a significant essential step towards returning a semblance of free enterprise
I totally agree but at the same time totally believe it will never happen and there is no such thing as “free enterprise” Never was and never will be. Look at human history. Name an era, a country, a system where true free enterprise ever existed.
Never will be any utopia but I have known small business men that practiced ethically and made good
livings...Local Is the Future is a book that shows how and where free enterprising is done. Anti-trust laws and regulations are our only way forward if we have much of a future
Agreed. I do everything I can to support small, local enterprises, but ultimately they are not participating in free enterprise. Nothing in the universe is free. Something or someone always pays a negative price in a transaction. As for our future, I don’t see it. Humanity is a giant oil tanker that needs to change direction 180 degrees immediately. Giant oil tankers are not capable of doing that.
Not always a negative price in a transaction....thats why I recommend the book..give up the ship by getting on smaller boats...I agree that once a businesses grows beyond one location one community free enterprise is lost...SMALL is beautiful and you do indeed have to look to find examples such stories are more abundant than shown on mainstream news...we are hammer by news stories only about the foul enterprises.
Again, I agree. Small is the way to go, and you are right, not all transactions cause someone to lose out. In today’s world, it is rare though. I only feel good about commerce and free enterprise when I know where the goods come from, who produces them and that no one was taken advantage of in the process. That’s a difficult thing to find these days.
Yes, you have to look for it, but as Helena's book shows it does exist- and in my travels I have seen it. Helena is no idealist but a realist- she wrote the postscript to This Civilization is Finished by Rupert Read.
Paul Street is extremely critical of capitalism like you and I he has some excellent insights like Chris Hedges, but Paul turns to a communistic revolution...When I learned that I pointed out to him that Communism has a centralized monolithic corporate structure to it. Decentralization and putting restriction on growth going more to a regenerative eco-economics is the way to go. He got mad and booted me off his sight for saying so!
He is filled with reactionary hate...with endless criticisms rather than looking for what actually works and is good here in this world.
It easy to be completely dismissive.
Yes, but I don’t see the connection between breaking up the giant platforms and suppressing propaganda. Instead of a few big platforms telling lies, we could have many small platforms telling lies.
There will always be lies but the sickness of monopolies-Giant corporate power influencing everything done by government is the first primary problem...unless you would like Musk to own everyone and everything...he is getting there. Like I posted today: If the likes of Bezos and Musk are not held to be wrong, if they don't get broken up with anti-trust laws then the qualified corporate totalitarianism, we have today will go far closer to an unqualified total corporate totalitarianism. And our planet of finite resources will be ruined by our unlimited endless growth model becoming reality.
Agreed. The alternative to endless growth is a “circular economy” based on a steady-state human population who recycles just about everything.
Yes, indeed circular is what we destroyed when we wiped out our Indigenous peoples. Stan, two outstanding books on modern circular small businesses are Regenesis by George Monbiot and Local is the Future by Helena Norberg-Hodge
If giant tech can choose what is posted on their site then they should be legally accountable for the content.
Absolutely agree!
I've often thought the internet should be regarded like the airwaves, belonging to the people, but regulated such that access can be revoked if it is abused. A mechanism such as the fainess doctrine would be a monumental undertaking but highly beneficial.
If the platforms have a de facto monopoly on speech then regulation (by way of 'common carrier' designation) follows...
All this flows from the Supreme Court’s defining certain physical actions, such as donating money, as “speech,” which is the slipperiest of slopes.
But there’s a tremendous contradiction in the court’s own application of what does, and does not, qualify as protected speech. In their notorious Citizens United (2010) decision, they ruled that the giving of money to political candidates and campaigns is speech protected by the First Amendment, BUT in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) held that giving material assistance to terrorist groups, which cannot NOT include the transfer of funds, is a punishable federal crime and obviously not protected speech or any kind of speech.
It is a measure of the political hackery of the Court’s majority that they have ignored the critical need to reconcile their rulings in the two cases, as giving money is giving money and it is a physical act, not speech.
Thank you Professor Reich, Big Tech IS a common carrier, they are privately owned, but publicly used utility. I'm not sure the current Supreme Court is up to ruling in favor of citizens as opposed to their money train. I strongly disagree with their decision to throw out our law on protecting children, especially since it included such evil practices as child trafficking and online bullying. I don't care if the parents are full participants in these practices, parents have no more "right" to damage or injure their children than anyone else. Reasonable laws to prevent extreme should never be overturned never be overturned in favor of adult greed - at least I think Mark Zuckerberg is sort of an adult
You had me until your closing paragraphs. This is 2024, Trump is still walking free, and Clarence Thomas still sits on the Supreme Court. Reasonable choices and doing the right thing aren't in the US playbook right now. If I were a nail biter, I'd be typing this with a stylus held in my teeth.
I'm sad to say that I used to agree with Churchill but don't anymore. Americans can no longer be trusted to do the right thing.
Uh... fight on how many fronts?
Agreed!
I really LIKE the idea of reducing the power of the large Tech companies
But "Breaking them up" removes the advantage of a common stage for everyone
IMHO that "Common Stage" is very much worth having - so "Regulation" is better than "breaking up"
Substack is a common stage. We don’t need big tech to profit off our personal data without our permission. We don’t need a big tech common stage.
Kinda apples & oranges; the fact that "information wants to be free" & that there's always a technical solution to restrictions doesn't mean that uncontrolled activity (and abrogation of norms) isn't a public policy problem, let alone one requiring a legal solution. (Network utility increases with the square of the number of users; bad stewardship on the part of oversized, unaccountable technology companies isn't a justification for the loss of the public's utility in use of a given network - as those companies & their bits are all on American soil.)
then you could have the government provide a common stage .
... or if the technology companies already helped themselves to monopolizing whatever stage there would be, it's regulated.
This argument over the 1st Amendment drives me bonkers, It is used as whipping tool by everyone.
The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the right to speech or assembly.
It says nothing about free speech.
The problem is that the "founders" lived in an agrarian society, that was hardly advanced from the dark ages. The Romans had more advanced technology, most of which disappeared when the Romans withdrew from England and Europe and the barbarian tribes moved into the power vacuum.
As I see it speech is not a constitutional right, only that congress cannot pass a law abridging it.
This is a double edged sword, and depends on who is wielding it, thus how it is used and who it is used against, the same with any laws or court decision as to who or what has the right to use or censor speech.
That may be your belief, but it is long standing and commonly accepted that free speech is a right, trying to convince the country that your interpretation is the right one will be an uphill battle at best.
The problem with the 1st Amendment is the same with the 2nd amendment.
The founders distrusted a standing army, because armies in England and Europe were paid by barons and dukes and used to overthrow the crown.
But they failed to realize that the government that they created did not resemble the royalty of England, though there were some royalists, Hamilton among them, though you would think not, but Hamilton wanted a perpetual presidency
Militia's were conscripted, for short duration, one to three months, to fight the Red coats, and the Continental Army was disbanded, save for a cadre, after the treaty of Paris in 1783.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to create a well regulated (and trained) militia that could be called to arms to defend the country, well the idea fell flat in 1812, militia forces could not stand up to British force., and they met minimum resistance when they marched into Washington D.C.
The well regulated militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment is each states National Guard, and thus the 2nd Amendment is now obsolete.
This amendment is worshiped by government hating, neo confederates, racists ranchers and conspiracy theories who project onto the government their desire to be fascist dictators.
I could not agree more with your last paragraph. You may have studied this issue more than I have, but it seems to me James Madison was very taken with the idea that the citizens would be allowed personal arms. Whether you call it a belief or an opinion mine is that the founders were not of one mind and after considered debate wrote an ambiguously worded amendment as a compromise..
Madison held his view only because at that time and in that era, the biggest threat to governance was a standing army. They feared a standing army, there was still a rather fresh memory of Cromwells model army.
They believed that a WELL REGULATED militia, meaning one that had been trained, and organized was essential to national defense. They were misguided, because the militias could not stand up to regular Red coats, but evidently the founders didn't learn their lesson. They did keep a small, drilled cadre from the veterans of the Continental Army.
The states have since create there own well regulated militia's, they are called the National Guard and thus there is no longer any use for armed citizens, except to kill each other, but America has been infected with this irrational fear of libs, gays, people of color using the government to take over their lives and property, and thus are obsessed with owning guns and ammo to fight them libs, them nigrahs, them queers, them immigrants who are vermin pollluting the blood of THEIR white Christian country.
And I expect that if Trump wins the election, he will turn loose his cult to take revenge on those libs, nigrahs, queers, and immigrants. And you will have the America you apparently desire.
I don't know where you ever got the idea I desire that. On this point you could not be more mistaken.
Your comment about the 2nd Amendment
I have no beliefs, opinions yes and many, beliefs none. You are correct that there is a common assumption about free speech, but assumptions are not facts.
I have no intention of trying to convince anyone, much less the country that the Constitution does not mention or address free speech.
I have no illusions about being a superman, a savior, I have no aspirations as such and if I did, at age 85, with deficits I would not live long enough.
Merely expressing my thoughts and opinions.
Lee, thank you for your wisdom and insight. I, too, have no beliefs and many opinions. One of my opinions is that speech is free and the speaker must accept the consequences of their words. If I yell fire in a movie theater and someone dies under the feet of the crowd trying to escape, then lock me hp and throw away the key. If I stand on the corner and yell “Trump is a disgrace to the human race” I should be allowed to walk home and not be prosecuted by anyone.
Agreed
"Speech is not an absolute": if your corner stumping happens to incite a small riot, e.g. outside a Trump rally or the RNC convention, then your speech would be halted & you would not walk home (and would certainly expect prosecution); as such, speech is free - but commonly abridged.
It had been established in some quarters that the 2nd amendment was created to keep the South in at the nation’s founding. The South wanted militias in order to maintain control over their slaves.
That aside, the 1st Amendment is clear, regardless of what people’s “common understanding” is.
Government shall make no law limiting speech. Therefore, any attempt by any state, federal or municipal entity to proscribe speech is prohibited. Corporations have speech rights. These rights allow them to proscribe speech on their platforms. In my case against Amtrak, that was their defense. We overcame this by showing that Amtrak was not a private entity, but part of the government.
I do believe that public ownership of fb, Google, etc is the only solution. But that would require a revolution and is not something that liberals would endorse.
I agree with you about the 2nd Amendment
The 1st Amendment says nothing about the government, only that Congress shall make no law, and Congress is not the government, only a branch.
The series of Supreme Court rulings that give corporations personhood and considers money to be speech is an aberration brought on by corrupted Judges. The law clerk who wrote the head note in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific had been himself a RR executive, this case is used and has been used as a basis for the ruling that corporations are people, it has led to Buckley v Valeo, 2nd National Bank of Boston V Belotti, which culminated in Citizens United and in each instance there was deception and deference such as the Chevron Deference
The problem with FB and Google being owned by the government, is who holds the reins of government.
Better that it be in private ownership and be regulated and restricted from subverting society.
"Common carriers"--like whores spreading microbes! You either legalize it, or you outlaw it, If you legalize it, you must set the rules and guidelines. If someone suffers as a result of misinformation, the source must be held accountable, and the platform must keep records.
Great analogy, I love it!
I agree that Big Tech should be broken up but there's an answer that can be implemented while that long and difficult battle rages: The US Government builds state-of-the-art tech platforms for public use, just as we built the Interstate Highway infrastructure in the 1950's. A (relatively) free-access government sales platform won't address free speech concerns. What it WILL do is allow smaller businesses access to huge markets that they can currently only reach through Amazon, which drives down profits for the little guy while growing more powerful every day. Because of the razor thin profits made by small companies selling on Amazon, they're also forced to raise their prices elsewhere. I know there will be a lot of resistance to the idea of "public online infrastructure" but it's something certainly worthy of discussion.
It’s an interesting idea and analogy. I’d compare it more to the concept of a different government program, the Post Office. The Post Office delivers physical items physically. The internet delivers to your electronic devices data, news and commentary, and access to commerce (think of it as the electronic version of a printed Sears catalog). The Post Office also disallows certain items based upon safety. Almost everything is covered, meaning envelope and boxes, so contents remain private. Now most people think the internet is private, but in reality, once it’s out there, it’s out there. But in the same way the Post Office doesn’t allow certain items for safety or transfer of items that violate other federal laws. The electronic post office (aka internet) can also ban child pornography, aiding in human trafficking, hate speech that incites violence and insurrection, conspiracies that violate laws.
I’m in favor!
I could say I don’t care as I don’t use social media. But with this court I fear they Will find for industry against consumers
You’re using a social media now. What do you think Substack is?
You might as well say you don't care about education because you're out of school, this has profound effect on society as a whole and one way of another its going to have an effect on you.
It’s not about finding for industry against consumers.
Corporations have First Amendment rights. Only the government can be constrained from censorship.
Corporations enjoy fictional personhoods, and all their rights are embodied in their charters, not the Constitution. Furthermore, no person, real or fictional, is entitled to violate the rights of others.
Corporate charters gave the legal status of person hood to corporations so they could buy, own and sell assets, sue and be sued. No other person hood characteristic were embodied in the laws that created those charters. The Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United constitutes gross negligence.
Money is power, not speech. When money is used to empower speech it acts as a megaphone and drowns the speech of those who lack money.
I’ve fought three speech cases. One all the way to SCOTUS. I’m telling you what I have come across as a matter of law.
Suit yourself.
Thank you.
If the courts have determined that corporations are people, that is the law until it is made not the law. Your assertion that it is otherwise does not make it so by fiat. That is just sentiment.
It seems that We the People need to enlighten "the courts." Abject servility to business interests on the part of some judges is undermining the legitimacy of the entire judiciary.
I agree the court will rule in favor of the corporations. Either hamfisted outcome is unsatisfactory as it doesn't deal with the need for Congress legislation on the issues.
Robert Reich - do you still believe the American people can be trusted?
I know my opinion is fairly worthless here, but I sure do! Only about 30% or so living in America are anti-life, and almost 75% agree on all PROGESSive legislation.
I don't know about you, but that gives ME hope for President Biden's second term!