U.C. Irvine Prof. Calls For Selective Censorship to Reign in 'Cheap Speech' - Granite Grok

U.C. Irvine Prof. Calls For Selective Censorship to Reign in ‘Cheap Speech’

Diversity Speech policeIn an August, 18th Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, Richard L. Hasen, the Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine, offered his insight into the problem of “cheap speech.”

Framing the context in an opening paragraph that fingers White Supremacists in Charlottesville, President Trump’s twitter feed, and Facebook, Hasen warns,

The rise of what we might call “cheap speech” has, … fundamentally altered both how we communicate and the nature of our politics, endangering the health of our democracy. The path back to a more normal political scene will not be easy.

You’d think the Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science at UC Irvine would know we don’t live in a Democracy, but let’s not choke on small bones when we have much bigger fish to fry.

Professor Hasen begins with a nod to history; to a time when a much smaller media footprint “served as gatekeepers for news and opinion content.” And while he has some positive words for what the internet has done for communication since then, in the end, his progressive proclivities can’t stomach what inevitably comes with too much free expression.

No doubt the Internet has dramatically lowered the costs of obtaining information and spurred the creation and consumption of content from radically diverse sources. Anyone with an idea can now get it out on Facebook, Twitter or any number of other sites accessible to anyone in the world with an Internet connection. And cheap speech has been a boon to those fighting oppressive regimes around the world, as truthful messages and relevant information can spread despite government censorship efforts.

Less positively, cheap speech has undermined mediating and stabilizing institutions of American democracy, including newspapers and political parties, with negative social and political consequences.

If you are too young to remember the old guard used to have a monopoly on speech which gave it the ability to decide what we did and did not know. The truth was what they said it was. And they decided what was news, reporting what was of interest to them and ignoring what they didn’t want you to know.

Put another way, the media of old had a monopoly on “fake news.” It is a business that has been around since long before the internet. Hasen Continues,

Fake news is far from the only problem associated with cheap speech. The demise of local newspapers sets the stage for an increase in corruption among state and local officials. Without newspapers watching, as the Los Angeles Times did in its Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of corruption in Bell, chicanery can flourish.

Sorry, but that’s utter garbage. Internet news pioneer Matt Drudge broke the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. A story the corrupt old guard sat on to protect a political ally. And local bloggers and news hounds are uncovering local corruption by the truckload. They can turn the tiniest beep about local political corruption into a national story overnight because there are no progressive media gatekeepers. And many are able to drive that news into the mainstream media who fear losing more readers and revenue to purveyors of “cheap speech.”

Cheap speech is also hastening the irrelevancy of political parties by facilitating direct communication between politicians and voters. Social media, for instance, provided Trump a vehicle to get around the GOP in launching his unorthodox campaign. Now that he’s president, social media allows him to circumvent not only the media but also his staff as he lies to the public.

I thought progressives liked change? Evolution. Moving forward. No? So, what can we do to halt the demise of newspapers, and political parties professor, as if there is anything wrong about that?

As Trump’s presidency should make obvious, we do not want the government to have the power to ban speech it dislikes — what the White House considers “fake news.” 1st Amendment protections rightfully would prevent such legislation, anyway.

Still, in the era of cheap speech, some shifts in 1st Amendment doctrine seem desirable to assist citizens in ascertaining the truth. The courts should not stand in the way of possible future laws aimed at requiring social media sites to identify and police false political advertising, for instance.

As the Trump presidency should make obvious? The only evidence that speech is under assault during the past seven months has come from the militant left. Groups catalyzed by Democrat power and money in the wake of an Obama Administration whose IRS (as but one example) used force and intimidation to silence conservative and libertarian non-profits. They made it as difficult as possible for them to freely associate for the purpose of engaging in political speech.

And the courts are still pussy-footing around with that exercise. One where bureaucrats, titular enforcers of their master’s political will, used the power of government to suppress political speech to which they objected. Truth’s unspoken while the courts and legislators have refused to raise an adequate defense of their right to express it.

In the wake of that travesty of liberty, Professor Hasen thinks yet another enlightened progressive troop should be enabled for a like purpose, protected from judicial scrutiny or the fear of legal action.

He says he doesn’t want the government to have the power to ban speech it dislikes but thinks, “some shifts in 1st Amendment doctrine seem desirable to assist citizens in ascertaining the truth.”

Professor Hasen is concerned that the private right to limit speech–a right still retained by companies like Facebook, Google, and the companies that own the physical infrastructure–could be revoked by the courts because of the scope and power these companies have over how speech is both delivered and discovered.

Google controls as majority of the search market. Google’s progressive culture is already inclined to meddle in how quickly speech it (and prof. Hasen) object to can be found. Facebook as well. In fact, a majority of internet communication giants can probably be found riding in the Democrat parties hopey-changey bus. So some form of legal censorship (of speech they object to) is guaranteed if the courts can be convinced to leave well enough alone.

Ultimately, nongovernmental actors may be best suited to counter the problems created by cheap speech. Tech companies such as Facebook, Google and Twitter can assist audiences in ferreting out the truth. Consumer pressure may be necessary to get there, but it is not clear if consumers or shareholders will have the power to move dominant market players who do not want to be moved.

Headline: Progressive UC Irvine prof. unexectedly promotes corporate meddling in elections. Wow! 

And that brings us back to the root of the problem. The Truth.

Hasen assumes or perhaps hopes that free speech can be limited in terms to which he is amenable. To excuse this totalitarian impulse he cherry-picks events that will keep the bobbles-heads most likely to agree with him in motion. Motion creates inertia. Inertia generates force. Force is power. And power leads to supremacy, the goal of all progressive action.

Ideological supremacy is difficult while speech is truly free because their truth has to compete with every other. And in the age of cheap speech, those with the totalitarian impulse have had a spotty record of success. Certainly at the state or local level, where Democrat politicians are having a hard time hanging on to majorities. Even though the watchdogs of cheap speech are almost all on their side.

This isn’t about truth at all. It is about lost political power and the effort to regain it.

I can’t think of a better reason to leave speech alone.

>