"You don’t need to read the Frankfurt School theorists to know that large governments and corporations produce 'wants' and 'interests' and actively shape the values and desires of a society."
To play devil's advocate, isn't this precisely the purpose of free speech protections? To give individuals a way to publicly push back against these exercises of power? To protest, to create countercultures opposed to prevailing social norms? It seems to me that a more regulated free speech regime would actually increase governments' and corporates' ability to construct and coercively enforce what Foucault calls "regimes of truth."
You raise a good point, and I suppose it depends on which sorts of regulations you mean. At the moment, advertising regulations limit the influence that big corporations might have and, in my view, should be a lot more stringent when it comes to certain things like alcohol and gambling.
All excellent points- the only reservation I have is about Assange- did he or did he not assist Chelsea Manning in hacking a server? Did he or did he not act as the proxy for Guccifer 2.0 and the Prighozin led Russian cyber hacker crew that was waging a cyber war on America? Weren’t Trump minions like Pompeo and Stone actually more concerned about Assange revealing that he was a part of the Russian disinfo campaign being waged in America during the 2016 election then protecting national security interests? I’m not criticizing Assange for being a journalist, but is it possible he has been a willing participant in Russian disinfo, just as Glen Greenwald and Tucker Carlson have been shills for Putin’s plans of dominating Europe? And if so, that's not free speech for free speech’s sake. That’s political espionage.
You make some provocative points. It is interesting that Chelsea Manning was pardoned, whereas Mr Assange has been pursued to the ends of the earth. Do you think Mr Assange's case is different to that of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers?
Ellsberg’s actions, and Assange’s, I think both have to be looked at in context to their motivations and the situations on the ground. Were they righting a wrong, or were they aiding and abetting another crime? Did either one, regardless of motivation, cross a line into something much darker?
Ellsberg clearly did the US and the world a service. He helped bring about the end of the war, led to Nixon and his cronies being deposed, and alerted the world to the slaughter of the Cambodian people perpetrated by the US military in breech of the Geneva Convention. But Ellsberg was originally a part of the machine wasn’t he, an integral part of the State that had wrought all this misery. Daniel tried to enter evidence in court of the collusion and obstruction by the whole fetid lot of Nixon/ Kissinger/ Westmoreland and was summarily denied the right to even discuss his motivations (he would not reveal classified intel in doing so) by a Federal judge. He was in any light a sympathetic and patriotic figure and helped put an end to the war and Nixon.
Perhaps the same could be said of Chelsea Manning and Assange. And even IF Assange helped her hack the server, should they both be viewed in the same light? As to serving a higher cause, of speaking truth to power? My guts say yes, with the caveat that America was already completely informed that the whole premise of war in the Middle East was based on lies. Unlike Nam, a majority of the American people wanted to kill us some Muslims, any Muslims really, and despite the piss poor state of journalism in America, the public knew it was based on bullshit, or easily could have known. The public simply didn’t want to know, or to stop. And this would be the highest standards of investigative journalistic integrity.
Let’s say the debate about Assange began and ended with this affair…even if he released CIA’s hacking tools, or disclosed some methods, I could still consider Assange a man of conviction and bravery. If he dumped CIA field sources and got a bunch of our foreign assets killed, my sympathies would dry up. Best I’m aware it’s never been confirmed that he got people killed, only accused. But that would be part of the whole journalistic integrity thing wouldn’t it. Don’t compromise people in danger, don’t reveal your sources, don’t make the story about yourself…I’m riffing here, but I think you see what I’m pointing to.
But now we come to the whole cut out to proxy to the GRU and the 2016 election…and this is where I have some serious reservations about Julian. If you read through the timelines, the Raffi interviews at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Mueller Report, and stack it all up, it appears very likely that Assange, in my view, was helping to create the story.
He was no doubt a proxy for the Fancy Bear hacker group, and he had even given some interviews talking about what the intel would say about the DNC, likely before receiving it. He gave interviews insinuating that Guccifer 2.0 was indeed the Romanian taxi driver hacker dude, when he knew that was bullshit. Protecting a source when it’s another nation state? One that regularly engages in some retro grade anti humanist behavior? There’s a text retrieved from Assange where he stated he wanted to use the DNC materials to “ cause friction between Hillary and Bernie”. Poor choice of words? Or intent.
Regardless, I never bought that Pompeo was brain storming a CIA hit in broad daylight outside the Embassy in the middle of London simply because he was so upset about the CIA hacker tools being outed….a shootout with British forces on British soil to kill Assange…and it’s confirmed they were very strongly “ kicking it around”.
We know Mike Flynn, Stone and Trump and Putin are all embroiled in this, and I think Trump and co. feared (fear) Assange singing about what role he played in this whole tawdry affair. And if he’s guilty of colluding with the Russians and the fascist movement in America to rig the election, yeah, I’d like to see Julian do hard time for that.
Objection: we’re virtually powerless to prevent the government from hiring police and declaring war. That’s not the same as “trusting” it. But absolutely, we're right *not* to trust it to censor information beyond First Amendment limits.
There's certainly much more trust in the government to hire police and declare war -- why is there no constitutional amendment against these things, or the same amount of judicial and public discussion that the First Amendment produces?
I take your point. I just don't trust it re: war due to the endless stream of undeclared ones it's embroiled us in over the past several decades. De jure, you're obviously right. De facto, I've lost trust re: war.
In practical terms, i.e. in ways that large societies are organized are there better models than the First Amendment and it's interpretation in the last 100 years or so?
About truth maximization: is that the right measure to optimize for? Over, say, freedom? The thought of a bunch of people walking around picturing a flat earth in their heads is amusing, and a small price to pay for a guarantee that people are not locked up for having false ideas. And even if truth maximization (over a long time horizon) is the goal, removing impediments to free inquiry, over any regulation on speech seems like the better bet.
Are there better models? Maybe -- it depends what you mean by "better".
I don't know: you'd have to give an argument that it's preferable to prioritise freedom over truth, and to come up with a conception of freedom that isn't simply "libertarian" freedom. There are some people who think that unfettered freedom of speech is actually an impediment to freedom. I deal with such ideas (though very briefly) in this piece:
Thank you for the link! I do think platforms should moderate content and that users should be held liable according to whatever defamation etc. laws exist. Should platforms themselves be held liable? As a (very average) computer programmer I look at numbers like "700 million daily unique posts on Facebook" and wonder how to even go about identifying what needs review. Maybe with new Machine Learning technologies it can be solved? And how do you delete just selective bits of data from various backups to forget something? These are hard problems in Computer Science :)
Returning to this post:
By better model I just meant given your critique of the First Amendment and how it's been interpreted, is there another country, say, where there is greater truth maximization. My knowledge of speech regulations is limited to a small handful of countries, so was just curious.
I don't know, really. My arguments were against what I think to be misplaced confidence in the First Amendment. When it comes to public discussions, it's not obvious to me that the USA has healthier debates than, say, Australia.
"You don’t need to read the Frankfurt School theorists to know that large governments and corporations produce 'wants' and 'interests' and actively shape the values and desires of a society."
To play devil's advocate, isn't this precisely the purpose of free speech protections? To give individuals a way to publicly push back against these exercises of power? To protest, to create countercultures opposed to prevailing social norms? It seems to me that a more regulated free speech regime would actually increase governments' and corporates' ability to construct and coercively enforce what Foucault calls "regimes of truth."
You raise a good point, and I suppose it depends on which sorts of regulations you mean. At the moment, advertising regulations limit the influence that big corporations might have and, in my view, should be a lot more stringent when it comes to certain things like alcohol and gambling.
praying for Assange and his family. great reporting by Craig Murray - https://consortiumnews.com/2024/02/21/craig-murray-your-man-on-assanges-final-appeal/
All excellent points- the only reservation I have is about Assange- did he or did he not assist Chelsea Manning in hacking a server? Did he or did he not act as the proxy for Guccifer 2.0 and the Prighozin led Russian cyber hacker crew that was waging a cyber war on America? Weren’t Trump minions like Pompeo and Stone actually more concerned about Assange revealing that he was a part of the Russian disinfo campaign being waged in America during the 2016 election then protecting national security interests? I’m not criticizing Assange for being a journalist, but is it possible he has been a willing participant in Russian disinfo, just as Glen Greenwald and Tucker Carlson have been shills for Putin’s plans of dominating Europe? And if so, that's not free speech for free speech’s sake. That’s political espionage.
You make some provocative points. It is interesting that Chelsea Manning was pardoned, whereas Mr Assange has been pursued to the ends of the earth. Do you think Mr Assange's case is different to that of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers?
Ellsberg’s actions, and Assange’s, I think both have to be looked at in context to their motivations and the situations on the ground. Were they righting a wrong, or were they aiding and abetting another crime? Did either one, regardless of motivation, cross a line into something much darker?
Ellsberg clearly did the US and the world a service. He helped bring about the end of the war, led to Nixon and his cronies being deposed, and alerted the world to the slaughter of the Cambodian people perpetrated by the US military in breech of the Geneva Convention. But Ellsberg was originally a part of the machine wasn’t he, an integral part of the State that had wrought all this misery. Daniel tried to enter evidence in court of the collusion and obstruction by the whole fetid lot of Nixon/ Kissinger/ Westmoreland and was summarily denied the right to even discuss his motivations (he would not reveal classified intel in doing so) by a Federal judge. He was in any light a sympathetic and patriotic figure and helped put an end to the war and Nixon.
Perhaps the same could be said of Chelsea Manning and Assange. And even IF Assange helped her hack the server, should they both be viewed in the same light? As to serving a higher cause, of speaking truth to power? My guts say yes, with the caveat that America was already completely informed that the whole premise of war in the Middle East was based on lies. Unlike Nam, a majority of the American people wanted to kill us some Muslims, any Muslims really, and despite the piss poor state of journalism in America, the public knew it was based on bullshit, or easily could have known. The public simply didn’t want to know, or to stop. And this would be the highest standards of investigative journalistic integrity.
Let’s say the debate about Assange began and ended with this affair…even if he released CIA’s hacking tools, or disclosed some methods, I could still consider Assange a man of conviction and bravery. If he dumped CIA field sources and got a bunch of our foreign assets killed, my sympathies would dry up. Best I’m aware it’s never been confirmed that he got people killed, only accused. But that would be part of the whole journalistic integrity thing wouldn’t it. Don’t compromise people in danger, don’t reveal your sources, don’t make the story about yourself…I’m riffing here, but I think you see what I’m pointing to.
But now we come to the whole cut out to proxy to the GRU and the 2016 election…and this is where I have some serious reservations about Julian. If you read through the timelines, the Raffi interviews at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the Mueller Report, and stack it all up, it appears very likely that Assange, in my view, was helping to create the story.
He was no doubt a proxy for the Fancy Bear hacker group, and he had even given some interviews talking about what the intel would say about the DNC, likely before receiving it. He gave interviews insinuating that Guccifer 2.0 was indeed the Romanian taxi driver hacker dude, when he knew that was bullshit. Protecting a source when it’s another nation state? One that regularly engages in some retro grade anti humanist behavior? There’s a text retrieved from Assange where he stated he wanted to use the DNC materials to “ cause friction between Hillary and Bernie”. Poor choice of words? Or intent.
Regardless, I never bought that Pompeo was brain storming a CIA hit in broad daylight outside the Embassy in the middle of London simply because he was so upset about the CIA hacker tools being outed….a shootout with British forces on British soil to kill Assange…and it’s confirmed they were very strongly “ kicking it around”.
We know Mike Flynn, Stone and Trump and Putin are all embroiled in this, and I think Trump and co. feared (fear) Assange singing about what role he played in this whole tawdry affair. And if he’s guilty of colluding with the Russians and the fascist movement in America to rig the election, yeah, I’d like to see Julian do hard time for that.
Objection: we’re virtually powerless to prevent the government from hiring police and declaring war. That’s not the same as “trusting” it. But absolutely, we're right *not* to trust it to censor information beyond First Amendment limits.
There's certainly much more trust in the government to hire police and declare war -- why is there no constitutional amendment against these things, or the same amount of judicial and public discussion that the First Amendment produces?
I take your point. I just don't trust it re: war due to the endless stream of undeclared ones it's embroiled us in over the past several decades. De jure, you're obviously right. De facto, I've lost trust re: war.
And you're right to not trust them.
Diplomatic resolution of conflicts. What a concept. Maybe we should give a workshop to the State Department. ;-)
In practical terms, i.e. in ways that large societies are organized are there better models than the First Amendment and it's interpretation in the last 100 years or so?
About truth maximization: is that the right measure to optimize for? Over, say, freedom? The thought of a bunch of people walking around picturing a flat earth in their heads is amusing, and a small price to pay for a guarantee that people are not locked up for having false ideas. And even if truth maximization (over a long time horizon) is the goal, removing impediments to free inquiry, over any regulation on speech seems like the better bet.
Are there better models? Maybe -- it depends what you mean by "better".
I don't know: you'd have to give an argument that it's preferable to prioritise freedom over truth, and to come up with a conception of freedom that isn't simply "libertarian" freedom. There are some people who think that unfettered freedom of speech is actually an impediment to freedom. I deal with such ideas (though very briefly) in this piece:
https://williampoulos.substack.com/p/the-new-york-review-of-books-follows
Thank you for the link! I do think platforms should moderate content and that users should be held liable according to whatever defamation etc. laws exist. Should platforms themselves be held liable? As a (very average) computer programmer I look at numbers like "700 million daily unique posts on Facebook" and wonder how to even go about identifying what needs review. Maybe with new Machine Learning technologies it can be solved? And how do you delete just selective bits of data from various backups to forget something? These are hard problems in Computer Science :)
Returning to this post:
By better model I just meant given your critique of the First Amendment and how it's been interpreted, is there another country, say, where there is greater truth maximization. My knowledge of speech regulations is limited to a small handful of countries, so was just curious.
I don't know, really. My arguments were against what I think to be misplaced confidence in the First Amendment. When it comes to public discussions, it's not obvious to me that the USA has healthier debates than, say, Australia.
Freedom of speech is two things; the right to express yourself and the right to hear opinions other than the status quo.
The former is a prerequisite for freedom and the latter is a prerequisite for civilization. Which would any reasonable argument dissuade us from?