The Aspen Institute has issued the results of its much heralded 16-person Commission on Information Disorder on how to protect the public from misinformation. The commission on disinformation and “building trust” was partially headed by Katie Couric who is still struggling with her own admission that she edited an interview to remove controversial statements by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Aspen recommendations however are a full-throated endorsement of systems of censorship.
The findings and recommendations are found in an 80-page report on how to combat “disinformation” and “misinformation,” which are remarkably ill-defined but treated as a matter of “we know when we see it.” From the outset, however, the Commission dismissed the long-standing free speech principle that the solution to bad speech is better speech, not censorship. The problem is that many today object to allowing those with opposing views to continue to speak or others continue to listen to them. The Commission quickly tosses the free speech norm to the side:
“The biggest lie of all, which this crisis thrives on, and which the beneficiaries of mis- and disinformation feed on, is that the crisis itself is uncontainable. One of the corollaries of that mythology is that, in order to fight bad information, all we need is more (and better distributed) good information. In reality, merely elevating truthful content is not nearly enough to change our current course.”
In addition to Couric, the Commission was headed by Color of Change President Rashad Robinson and Chris Krebs, former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Robinson was also a notable choice since he has been one of the most outspoken advocates of censorship. While some of us have been denouncing the expanding system of censorship by companies like Facebook, Robinson was threatening boycotts if the companies do not “rein in” those considered racists or spreaders of misinformation.
The Commission also includes Prince Harry who has referred to free speech protections under the First Amendment as “bonkers.”
Much of the report seems more aspirational in recommendations like “endorsing efforts that focus on exposing how historical and current imbalances of power, access and equity are manufactured and propagated with mis- and disinformation — and on promoting community-led solutions to forging social bonds.”
The Commission also appears to endorse the movement against “objectivity” and “both sideism” in the media: “Commissioners also discussed the need to adjust journalistic norms to avoid false equivalencies between lies and empirical fact in the pursuit of ‘both sides’ and ‘objectivity,’ particularly in areas of public health, civil rights, or election outcomes.”
Former New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones was one of the journalists who pushed the New York Times to denounce its own publication and promise to curtail columns in the future. In so doing, she railed against those who engage in what she called “even-handedness, both sideism” journalism. Likewise, Stanford Communications Professor Emeritus Ted Glasser has publicly called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking “social justice.” In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
However, the most chilling aspect of the report is the obvious invitation for greater forms of censorship. It calls for the government to become involved in combatting misinformation, the scourge of free speech and an invitation for state controls over speech. Ironically, there is no need for such direct government involvement when social media companies are acting as the equivalent of a state media in the censorship of public debates.
The import of the recommendations are abundantly clear:
“Reducing Harms: Mitigating the worst harms of mis- and disinformation, such as threats to public health and democratic participation, and the targeting of communities through hate speech and extremism.
-
Comprehensive Federal Approach: Establish a comprehensive strategic approach to countering disinformation and the spread of misinformation, including a centralized national response strategy, clearly-defined roles and responsibilities across the Executive Branch, and identified gaps in authorities and capabilities.
-
Public Restoration Fund: Create an independent organization, with a mandate to develop systemic misinformation countermeasures through education, research, and investment in local institutions.
-
Civic Empowerment: Invest and innovate in online education and platform product features to increase users’ awareness of and resilience to online misinformation.
-
Superspreader Accountability: Hold superspreaders of mis- and disinformation to account with clear, transparent, and consistently applied policies that enable quicker, more decisive actions and penalties, commensurate with their impacts — regardless of location, or political views, or role in society.
-
Amendments to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996: 1) Withdraw platform immunity for content that is promoted through paid advertising and post promotion; and 2) Remove immunity as it relates to the implementation of product features, recommendation engines, and design.”
The ill-defined terms of “misinformation” and “disinformation” become more menacing when those terms are used as the basis for a government and private sector system to take “decisive actions and penalties” against those who spread such information. The Commission is more focused on harm than the specific definition:
“Disinformation inflames long-standing inequalities and undermines lived experiences for historically targeted communities, particularly Black/African American communities. False narratives can sow division, hamper public health initiatives, undermine elections, or deliver fresh marks to grifters and profiteers, and they capitalize on deep-rooted problems within American society. Disinformation pours lighter fluid on the sparks of discord that exist in every community.”
In the end, the Commission dismisses the classic defense of free speech while calling for greater regulation of speech to address “deep-rooted problems in American society.” However, the deepest rooted problems in our society include the denial of free speech. Indeed, the First Amendment is premised on the belief that this right is essential to protecting the other freedoms in the Constitution. It is the right that allows people to challenge their government and others on electoral issues, public health issues, and other controversies.
The Aspen report is the latest evidence of a building anti-free speech movement in the United States. It is a movement that both rejects core free speech values but also seeks to normalize censorship. In the last few years, we have seen an increasing call for private censorship from Democratic politicians and liberal commentators. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.
Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new and more limited role for free speech in society.
Prince Harry on the committee? Definitive proof of the committee’s dangerous lunacy, given Harry’s notorious ignorance and cognitive challenges.
” Jewish groups and lawmakers criticized Prince Harry on Thursday for wearing a Nazi uniform to a costume party, with one group urging him to visit the Auschwitz death camp…”
I grew up with Nazi parodies, in which the goal was to demean and belittle Hitler and his Nazis. Examples are Faulty Towers and Mel Brooks. The “Soup Nazi” on Seinfeld. Youtube videos parodying Hitler’s blowup in his war room with nonsense.
Here’s the video for Mel Brooks’ “Hitler Rap”, which was banned in Germany. (https://youtu.be/kmzPnpn63nA) Clearly, Brooks is Jewish, and not a Neo Nazi. His goal was to ridicule, which I’m all for. Mel Brooks made fun of demons, whether it was the KKK in Blazing Saddles or Hitler, one of his favorite monsters to mercilessly ridicule. Could a movie even be made today with a black man saying “Where are the white women at?”
I enjoyed seeing the homicidal, antisemitic psychopaths reduced to bumbling fools. If you watched the Harry Potter movies, there was this one scene where the students had to confront a Boggart hiding in a trunk. It would burst out of the trunk in the form of your greatest fear. The only defense was a spell called, “Riddikulus!” This changed the Boggart’s image into something ridiculous. A giant menacing spider found itself on 8 roller skates, sliding out of control and falling on its butts. Rendering monsters harmless through mockery or humor has a long tradition.
I never thought Prince Harry was an anti-semite, and I doubt most of his critics did, either. It was instead considered to be insensitive and in poor taste. I always wondered if his goal was to ridicule Hitler, or if he was simply dressing up like a monster. No one says you support Freddy Krueger if you dress like him for Halloween.
For me, the intent was important. The Firm always did have stricter rules than the rest of us.
However, I absolutely agree with you that Prince Harry has shown very poor judgement in recent years. His dragging family drama into the public eye instead of handling it directly is unkind and thoughtless. And apparently lucrative. He appears to only value his own speech and not that of critics.
The left has no ethics or courage, but it does have a sense of irony, and this report shows it. But they didn’t need 80 pages to explain how to combat fake news. Challenging CNN and MSNBC to a no-holds-barred debate would go a long way to exposing their inner hypocrisy and deceit. Make it a show trial, and other media outlets may finally see the light.
Hanoi Jane comes to mind when thinking dis/mis information. Who at the time was considered by some valiant, and (today?) . But if you’ll notice still a Democrat.
Where were you deployed on January 30, 1968? Were you then a rifleman, a ’60 operator or a radioman?
On that exact date if I remember correctly, Red Beach, Infantry, Prick when required! So why the interest, and back at you, where were you on January 30, 1968, and what credentials did you have?
How’d that go?
Did the NVA and VC hit Red Beach on TET? If it was anything like Vung Tau, you were on R&R, right?
CAR, PH, etc.?
“It calls for the government to become involved in combatting misinformation.”
Orwellian irony. They’re already involved in propagating mis-, dis-, and malinformation.
If you supported the way the Nicholas Sandman media shark attack was resolved through defamation consequences, then you’ve found the beginnings of a sound legal approach to deterring the worst-of-the-worst of flagrant infowarfare. The government’s role in defamation actions is 1) to act as neutral magistrate and referee in court/trial proceedings, and 2) as enforcer of torts penalties. The Courts does NOT act as a censor in defamation torts, yet plays a constructive role in mediating such conflicts among citizens and orgs.
A conservative counter-proposal to outright govt. censorship is to expand access to defamation torts (by reversing the Sullivan decision, and revising Section 230 protections open up content moderators/editors to defamation deterrence). And, taking steps toward Rapid-Response Defamation Courts, where endless process delays are not handed to the deceitful infowarrior as a means of escaping consequences.
Finally, we could experiment with public-plaintiff disinformation torts — the ability of plaintiffs to sue deceitful infowarriors for promulgating frauds injurious to the public.
The idea of cultivating critical-thinking media-consumption skills broadly is a good direction. Do you think we could force the Psy-Ops groups at Langley and Quantico to put their courses online for all Americans (and foreigners) to study? Can we get the PhD Applied Psychologists working at for Big Data to become whistleblowers, and come over to the good side? The point is that advanced knowledge of human cognitive frailties are being employed every day to shape opinion and behavior. How do you get the general public to the same level of awareness as the puppet masters behind the screen? Is it realistic to think that can occur?
OT
“AT ONE’S PLEASURE”
“The Endless Frontier Act…is an Orgy of Spending”
– Senator John Kennedy (R-La.)
_________________________
“…[Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please;…”
“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
– Thomas Jefferson
“Fighting ‘Information Disorder’”
JT: That is a great, great post and analysis.
You’re like a ship’s beacon warning of dangers ahead. Now, if only the passengers will choose to see . . .
You’re like a ship’s beacon warning of dangers ahead. Now, if only the passengers will choose to see . . .
Unfortunately his warning is coming across like the intercom at Charlie Brown’s school.
https://youtu.be/q_BU5hR9gXE
The phenomenon of “information disorder” is news to you?
That is really scary.
“Information disorder” started when “Crazy Abe” Lincoln told America that secession was unconstitutional and that he had the power to suspend habeas corpus, and when Chief Justice Taney told him that he was clearly in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
America needs to be impeached and convicted all the way back to the original U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, fully abrogating the improperly ratified, unconstitutional and immutably illegitimate “Reconstruction Amendments.”
This following bit of “information disorder” should have been published and assimilated by Congress, presenting it with but one course, impeachment and conviction of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.
To wit,
“Lincoln and Taney’s Great Writ Showdown”
“The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,” Taney argued. “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,” Taney concluded.
However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.
– Scott Bomboy, National Constitution Center
In politically correct America, it has become fashionable to cry racist at every twist and turn
just like it was fashionable to cry witch at every twist and turn in medieval Europe.
I wanted to believe that people were smarter than this.
“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
– George Berkeley
_______________
They only “…cry racist at every twist and turn…” because you continue to listen and lend credence “…at every twist and turn.”
Tell them to shut — —- up, get off the crutches of dependence of generational welfare and affirmative action, go get a job, and take care of themselves.
A link discussing Hannah Arendt’s warning about the path to Hell and good intentions . . . .
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/hannah-arendt-antiracism-little-rock
I spent most of my life reading and teaching history, and it was clear that the linguistic turn (postmodernism), which privileged argument over factual data, was a disaster for both the writing and teaching of history.
It also appears to have been a disaster for social relations, politics, publishing generally, and just about everything else it touches.
And to think that I once thought Foucault and cpy. interesting . . . . silly me!
One man’s hate speech is another man’s truth speech.
Of course the criminal element would be against the very idea of victims defending themselves!
It’s not in their interest.
Criminals have interests to defend, too!
The rioters were wrong for attacking Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse was right to defend himself.
If it is our right to defend ourselves, then how we choose to do so wherever we happen to be
should be irrelevant.
What if a mob gets angry at a firefighter putting out their fire and attack him, in defense of their right to see their fire rage?
Does their right to see their handiwork trump the firefighter’s right to defend himself?
“We are here to defend the right of everyone to riot without being shot.” – Protestor
The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to largely preclude the government from limiting certain “protected” speech (including some forms of expressive conduct) while permitting laws that focus on narrow categories of unprotected speech, such as defamation, obscenity, fraud, etc. 19 Philip Napoli and Fabienne Graf also point out that the Supreme Court has refused to include “false-speech” (including intentional false speech) in the collection of speech categories eligible for content-based restrictions. 20 page 18
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Aspen-Institute_Commission-on-Information-Disorder_Final-Report.pdf
So Napoli and Graf view a decision by SCOTUS on what speech is protected under the 1st amendment to be a refusal to conform to this worldview of free speech restrictions. There are essentially two ways to approach what amounts to lying: Regulate speech in an attempt to prevent it, or teach people how to critically evaluate speech to not be the victim of it. SCOTUS (what do they know) believes in the caveat emptor approach to free speech. Generally, it’s not the state’s responsibility to protect citizens from dis or misinformation.
We citizens have a natural right to self-defense. This includes defending ourselves against false speech. We need to be self-reliant and “arm” ourselves with the ability defend our minds from attack, similar to why we have 2nd amendment rights. This commission is not interested in developing a citizenry capable of a self-reliant defense against false speech. Now that many are “disarmed”, they will now be at the mercy of the state to protect them. Has there ever been a time in history where freedom and liberty existed without the citizens right to self-defense of mind and property being protected?
“. . . the beneficiaries of mis- and disinformation feed on . . .”
A handy guide to censor-speak:
“Misinformation:” Any ideas, opinions, arguments that contradict our decrees.
“Disinformation:” Any ideas, opinions, arguments that are harmful to our decrees.
The rationale? Ordinary people are too stupid and weak to figure things out for themselves. They need us, the High Priests of Truth, to decree what they should think and how they should act. (Thank you Plato, for providing us — the ultimate beneficiaries — with the philosophic blueprint.)
P.S. Katie Couric — really?! I’d sooner take advice from Greta Thunberg.
Ditto Prince Harry.
Discrimination lawsuits usually come down to something somebody said at the workplace, essentially punishing employers for something somebody said.
Congress is the body that passed the laws that abridge free expression in this way.
And these unconstitutional laws have been on the books for decades.
America needs an enlightened despot or benevolent dictator with the physical might to neutralize these Orwellian forces somehow (arrest?), so that we
can get on with being free again, and having a right not be punished for exercising our rights and freedoms. That would be refreshing.
And liberating. And paradoxical.
Dominion:
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,…
It really is very simple, and I don’t understand what all the hubbub is about: As long as you think and speak the correct things, you won’t need to be censored. Duh! Anyone who can’t understand that is, obviously, a racist, xyz-phobic, though-supremacist criminal who deserves to be silenced, captured, reeducated, and closely monitored to ensure they don’t relapse.
Now then, you do agree don’t you … … …? Before you answer just remember, we’re watching you.