Winslow Homer Salt Kettle, Bermuda 1899
In the wake of a number of the Lehman and 9/11 commemorations in America, and as a monster storm is once again threatening to cause outsize damage, we find ourselves at a pivotal point in time, which will decide how the country interacts with its own laws, its legal system, its Constitution, its freedom of speech, and indeed if it has sufficient willpower left to adhere to the Constitution as its no. 1 guiding principle.
The main problem is that it all seems to slip slide straight by the people, who are -kept- busy with completely different issues. That is convenient for those who would like less focus on the Constitution, but it's also very dangerous for everyone else. Americans should today stand up for freedom of speech, or it will be gone, likely forever.
The way it works is that president Trump is portrayed as the major threat to ‘the rule of law', which allows other people, as well as companies and organizations, to drop below the radar and devise and work on plans and schemes that threaten the country itself, and its future as a nation ruled by its laws.
Bob Woodward's book "Fear: Trump in the White House" and the anonymous op-ed published in the NYT a day later serve as a good reminder of these dynamics. If you succeed in confirming people's idea that Trump is such an unhinged idiot that an unelected cabal inside the White House is needed to save the nation from the president it elected, you're well on your way.
Well on your way to separate the country from its own laws, that is. Not on your way to saving it. You can't save America by suspending its Constitution just because that suits your particular political goals or points of view.
Late last night, Michael Tracey wrote on Twitter: "Trump's preference to pull out of Afghanistan is depicted in the Woodward book as yet another crazy impulse that the "adults in the room" successfully rein in." "We're going to save you from yourselves, thank us later!" Nobody voted for those adults in the room anymore than anyone voted for the Afghanistan ‘war' to enter year 17.
Meanwhile Infowars said: "Several people within Trump's inner circle know the threat to the mid-terms and his re-election chances that social media censorship poses, including Donald Trump Jr. and Brad Parscale, his 2020 campaign manager. However, older members of the administration are completely unaware of the fact that banning prominent online voices and manipulating algorithms can shift millions of votes and are oblivious to the danger. This ignorance has placed a temporary block on Trump taking action, despite the president repeatedly referring to Big Tech censorship in tweets and speeches over the last few weeks."
Yes, Infowars, I know, everybody loves to hate Alex Jones. And perhaps for good reasons, at least at times. But does that mean he can be banned from a whole slew of internet platforms without this having been run by and through the US court system? Without even one judge having examined the ‘evidence', if it even existed, that leads to such banning, blocking and shadowbanning?
Alex Jones is an ‘easy example' because he's so popular. Which is also, undoubtedly, why all the social media platforms ban him so easily, and all at the same time. ‘He's a terrible person', say so many of their readers. But that's not good enough, far from it. Twitter and Facebook should never be allowed to ban anyone, using opaque ‘Community Standards' or ‘Terms and Conditions' interpreted by kids fresh out of high school.
These platforms have important societal functions. They are for instance the new conduits governments, police, armies use to warn people in case of emergencies and disasters. You can't ban people from those conduits just because a bunch of geeks don't like what they say. If you can at all, it will have to be done through the legal system.
That this is not done at present poses an immense threat to that legal system, and to the Constitution itself. But Americans, and indeed Congressmen and Senators, have been trained in a Pavlovian way to believe that it's not Google and Facebook who threaten the Constitution, but that it's Trump and his crew.
Meanwhile, Trump is being put through Bob Mueller's Special Counsel legal wringer 24/7, while Alphabet, Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg escape any such scrutiny at all. That discrepancy, too, is eating away at the foundations of American law.
And like it or not, Trump had it right when he said "You look at Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media giants and I made it clear that we as a country cannot tolerate political censorship, blacklisting and rigged search results.."
America as a country cannot tolerate a few rich companies deciding whose voice can be heard, and whose will be silenced. It is entirely unacceptable. That goes for voices Trump doesn't want to hear as much as it does for whoever Silicon Valley doesn't. That's why neither should be in charge of making such decisions. It kills the Constitution.
None of the above means that everyone should be free to post terrorist sympathies or hate speech on social media platforms. But it does mean that legislative and judicial systems must define what these things mean, that this not be left up to arbitrary ‘Community Standards' interpreted by legally inept Silicon Valley interns, nor should it be left to secret algorithms to decide what news you see and what not.
America itself hangs in the balance, and so do many other western countries. What exactly is the difference between China's overt internet censorship and America's hidden one? That is what needs to be defined, and that can only be done by the legal system, by Congress, by the courts, by judges and juries.
And it's not something that has to be invented from scratch, it can and must be tested against the Constitution. That is the only way forward. That social media have taken over the country by storm, and nary a soul has any idea what that means, can never be an excuse to leave banning and silencing voices over to private parties, whoever they are.
It's not a unique American problem. In Europe there are all sorts of attempts to ban ‘hate speech', but there are very few proposals concerning who will define what that is. And since Europe has no Constitution, but instead has 27 different versions of one, it will be harder there. Then again, it will also be easier to get away with all sorts of arbitrary bannings etc.
Hungary will be inclined to ban totally different voices than for instance Denmark and so on. And nobody over there has given any sign of understanding how dangerous that is. Banning ‘hate speech' doesn't mean anything if the term hasn't been properly defined. But that also allows for banning voices someone simply doesn't like. To prevent that from happening, we have legal systems.
It's essential, it's elementary, Watson. But it's slipping through our fingers because our politicians are either incapable of, or unwilling to, comprehending the consequences. Why stick out your neck when nobody else does? It's like the anti-thesis of what politics means: stay safe.
So the social media's industry's own lobbying has a good shot at getting its way: they tell Washington to let them regulate themselves, and everything will be spic and dandy. That would be the final nail in the Constitution's coffin, and it's much closer than you think. Do be wary of that.
In the end it comes down to two things i've said before. First, there is no-one who's been as ferociously banned and worse the way Julian Assange has. His ban goes way beyond Silicon Valley, but it does paint a shrill portrait of how far the US, CIA, FBI, is willing to go, and to step beyond the Constitution, to get to someone they really don't like.
But has Assange ever violated and US law, let alone its Constitution? Not that we know of. Mike Pompeo has called WikiLeaks a ‘hostile intelligence service', and the DOJ has said the 1st Amendment, and thereby of necessity the entire US Constitution, doesn't apply to Assange because he's not an American, but both those things are devoid of any meaning, at least in a court of law.
Bob Woodward has an idea of what Assange faces, and he'd do much better to focus on helping him than trying to put Trump down through anonymous sources. And that also leads me to why I, personally, have at least some sympathy for Alex Jones, other than because he's being attacked unconstitutionally: Jones ran/runs a petition for Trump to free Julian Assange.
Come to think of it: it's when that petition started taking off that Jones's ‘real trouble' started. Given how closely interwoven Silicon Valley and the FBI and CIA have already become, I'm not going to feign any surprise at that.
And before you feel any wishes and desires coming up to impeach Trump, do realize that he may be the only person standing between you and a complete takeover of America by the FBI/NSA/CIA/DNC and Google/Facebook/Twitter, which will be accompanied by the ritual burial of the Constitution.
Think Trump is scary? Take a step back and survey the territory.