Yesterday, I received an email from HuffPost with the subject line, “Drag is free speech.” I’ve never seen it put that way – but, as a former costumer, amateur and professiona – dam right it is! A fashion sttement is as much a statement as anything in words (and more so than some of the word salads we hear.) Back in the 19th century, when costume began to be thought of in terms of authenticity of period and place (prior to that it was mostly contemporary garb, but with some class distinctions and of course some drag) there was an actor/playwright named Dion Boucicault who would not start practiving his part until he had settled his costume – he actually used it as a means of getting into character. I’m not aware of any thespian today who is that exreme – but they don’t really have to be. The field of costuming today already requires costumer to be a little bit historians and a little bit psychologists. Also, at The New Yorker, David Remnick had an article about how much like a mobster Trump** is – and how bad at it he is. And elsewhere, a quote from Mike Pence revealed that he actually does know what his wife’s name is (unfortunately – if appropriately – it is Karen.)
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
Letters from an American – August 21, 2023
Quote – Today [August 21] the president and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden visited Maui, where after seeing the devastation, President Biden said that “the country grieves with you, stands with you, and we’ll do everything possible to help you recover, rebuild, and respect culture and traditions when the rebuilding takes place.” He promised that we will “rebuild the way the people of Maui want to build.”Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) said, “We in Hawaii have been through hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions—but we have never seen such a robust federal response. Thank you.” Click through for full letter. It details everything done by the White House to support Hawaii. This includes a whole lot of stuff which did not make it into the mainstream media, and all of which goes to support Senator Schatz’s remark.
ProPublica – New York Workers Are Waiting on $79 Million in Back Wages
Quote – But the Department of Labor, which is responsible for both investigating wage theft claims and recovering back wages, has not been able to collect even a penny on behalf of [Saprina] James. [Mugisha F.] Sahini [and his company, Riverside Line,] flatly refused to pay for more than a year, James said, and then appealed the case, claiming that he wasn’t aware that the workers were earning less than minimum wage. The appeal has since been rejected, but James has yet to receive any payment. About to turn 60, James said she’s now unemployed and running through her savings to pay her bills. “I’m so upset,” she said. “This is ridiculous. I don’t understand why it takes so long.” Sahini did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Click through for article. And, of course, this is exactly why the rich want government underfunded and cash-strapped – because it help them get away with theft and greed. How they manage to get so many people who are being hurt by their theories to believe them has always been a mystery … but then division and hate are also a mystery to emotionally healthy people.
Food For Thought
This is a screenshot, so the video is not live. Sorry.
Yesterday, the radio opera was Verdi’s “Falstaff,” based on Shakespeare’s “The Merry Wives of Windsor. Back in the day when the filmed matinees were replayed on PBS, I remember there were a couple of very odd (to put it nicely) schedulings – like for instance “Medea” being replayed on Mothers’ Day (and there were others.) And then, of course, , hthey were being played after the fact, so that those scheduling them could have looked at the calendar and noted that “Medea,” for instance, was not the best choice for Mothers’ Day. That’s the one I remember, but I also remember that similar contretemps occurred several times. They seem to do better when the related real life occurrences are spontaneous – such as “Falstaff” being on radio (and also HD broadcast into theaters) in a week when a real life misogynistic conman has just been indicted after way too long a hiatus (of course, they were thinking of April Fools’ Day). There are differences – Falstaff gets his comeuppance from the very ladies he planned to seduce and swindle, and (ar least apparently) learns from the experience. I don’t anticipate any learning from experience to be happening in a Manhattan courtroom any time soon. The prodution is apparently the second one within about ten years – the previous one was very 1950’s, including a midcentury modern kitchen (through the window of which Falstaff got dumped into the Thames in a laundry basket.) This production doesn’t look consistently like any particular time and place, but it does appear to have a lot of color – reds, blues, and for one of Falstaff’s costimes an almost flueorescent orange. Also a lot of standing on tables. But then with such an absurd play it’s not out of line for the production to be a bit absurdist. (The play was supposed to have been inspired by Queen ELizabeth I telling Shakespeare she wanted to see “Sir John in love.” If so, evidently the best he could do was Sir John in heat, and certainly not forgetting about money. Falstaff may have been a knight, but he was not a noble character.) But it’s all in good fun, and the singers always seem to have at least as much fun as the audience – maybe more.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
Crooks & Liars – DeSantis Gets Caught In The Disney Mousetrap
Quote – The previous board, Disney controlled Reedy Creek Improvement District, approved the last minute agreement on Feb. 8, the very day before the Florida House voted to put the governor in charge. They knew what was coming and had a plan. The Board had a public meeting, but didn’t get into great detail about the document before unanimously voting to approve it…. One of the funniest parts of the declaration is the following rule: The declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England.” Click through for details. DeSantis thought he was so smart appointing his own board to control Disnet territory. Dunning-Kruger prevented him from realizing that Disney has real lawyers – and real mockery.
The First Amendment Encyclopedia – Actual Malice
Quote – Actual malice is the legal standard established by the Supreme Court for libel cases to determine when public officials or public figures may recover damages in lawsuits against the news media…. Beginning with the unanimous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court has held that public officials cannot recover damages for libel without proving that a statement was made with actual malice — defined as “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Click through for article. When we non lawyers hear the word “malice,” we think of feelings – a hatred of someone or something, and a desire to harm that target. But that’s not what it means in law. Dominion has received summary judgment against Fox for everything except Actual Malice (and therefore damages.) Given the texts and emails, I believe that too could be proven without a trial. The judge is probably thinking that those texts, emails, and other evidence need to bemore widely publicized.
Bonus: In the Public Interest – The Privatization of Everything: Now in Paperback
Just to announce that this book, subtitled “How the Plunder of Public Goods Transformed America and How We Can Fight Back,” has been reissued, now in paperback, which makes it both easier to handle and less expensive. So many people have fallen for the myth that “Government should be run like a business” -which may be applicable to authoritarian governments, but certainly not to a democracy – and if you are seeking talking points to push back, this would be a great source.
Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”
Heaven knows we have a Second Amendment problem in the United States. But the magnitude of our Second Amendment problem partly stems from, and also distracts from, the huge First Amendment problem we also have – which we have had for a long time, but which has been made painfully obvious by the rise of the internet and social media.
To put it bluntly, hate speech leads to violence, and wide availability of guns leads to that violence being gun violence. To paraphrase the reasoning attributed to Karl Popper, a society cannot be a tolerant society if it tolerates intolerance. It’s easy to say – but it’s extremely hard to legislate and regulate. That’s why I was immediately drawn to this article about what regulating social media need to look like.
Because we cannot afford THIS.
==============================================================
What social media regulation could look like: Think of pipelines, not utilities
As an economist who studies the regulation of utilities such as electricity, gas and water, I wonder what that regulation would look like. There are many regulatory models in use around the world, but few seem to fit the realities of social media. However, observing how these models work can provide valuable insights.
Families across the U.S. are suing social media companies over policies that they argue affected their children’s mental health.
Not really economic regulation
The central ideas behind economic regulation – safe, reliable service at fair and reasonable rates – have been around for centuries. The U.S. has a rich history of regulation since the turn of the 20th century.
The first federal economic regulator in the U.S. was the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was created by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. This law required railroads, which were growing dramatically and becoming a highly influential industry, to operate safely and fairly and to charge reasonable rates for service.
The Interstate Commerce Act reflected concerns that railroads – which were monopolies in the regions that they served and provided an essential service – could behave in any manner they chose and charge any price they wanted. This power threatened people who relied on rail service, such as farmers sending crops to market. Other industries, such as bus transportation and trucking, would later be subjected to similar regulation.
Individual social media companies don’t really fit this traditional mold of economic regulation. They are not monopolies, as we can see from people leaving Twitter and jumping to alternatives like Mastodon and Post.
While internet access is fast becoming an essential service in the information age, it’s debatable whether social media platforms provide essential services. And companies like Facebook and Twitter don’t directly charge people to use their platforms. So the traditional focus of economic regulation – fear of exorbitant rates – doesn’t apply.
Fairness and safety
In my view, a more relevant regulatory model for social media might be the way in which the U.S. regulates electricity grid and pipeline operations. These industries fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state utility regulators. Like these networks, social media carries a commodity – here it’s information, instead of electricity, oil or gas – and the public’s primary concern is that companies like Meta and Twitter should do it safely and fairly.
In this context, regulation means establishing standards for safety and equity. If a company violates those standards, it faces fines. It sounds simple, but the practice is far more complicated.
First, establishing these standards requires a careful definition of the regulated company’s roles and responsibilities. For example, your local electric utility is responsible for delivering power safely to your home. Since social media companies continuously adapt to the needs and wants of their users, establishing these roles and responsibilities could prove challenging.
Texas attempted to do this in 2021 with HB 20, a law that barred social media companies from banning users based on their political views. Social media trade groups sued, arguing that the measure infringed upon their members’ First Amendment rights. A federal appellate court blocked the law, and the case is likely headed to the Supreme Court.
President Biden named Lina Khan, a prominent critic of Big Tech companies, as chair of the Federal Trade Commission in 2021. The agency investigates issues including antitrust violations, deceptive trade practices and data privacy lapses. AP Photo/Saul Loeb
Setting appropriate levels of fines is also complicated. Theoretically, regulators should try to set a fine commensurate with the damage to society from the infraction. From a practical standpoint, however, regulators treat fines as a deterrent. If the regulator never has to assess the fine, it means that companies are adhering to the established standards for safety and equity.
But laws often inhibit agencies from energetically policing target industries. For example, the Office of Enforcement at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is concerned with safety and security of U.S. energy markets. But under a 2005 law, the office can’t levy civil penalties higher than US$1 million per day. In comparison, the cost to customers of the California power crisis of 2000-2001, fueled partially by energy market manipulation, has been estimated at approximately $40 billion.
In 2022 the Office of Enforcement settled eight investigations of violations that occurred from 2017 to 2021 and levied a total of $55.5 million in penalties. In addition, it opened 21 new investigations. Clearly, the prospect of a fine from the regulator is not a sufficient deterrent in every instance.
From legislation to regulation
Congress writes the laws that create regulatory agencies and guide their actions, so that’s where any moves to regulate social media companies will start. Since these companies are controlled by some of the wealthiest people in the U.S., it’s likely that a law regulating social media would face legal challenges, potentially all the way to the Supreme Court. And the current Supreme Court has a strong pro-business record.
If a new law withstands legal challenges, a regulatory agency such as the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Trade Commission, or perhaps a newly created agency, would have to write regulations establishing social media companies’ roles and responsibilities. In doing so, regulators would need to be mindful that changes in social preferences and tastes could render these roles moot.
Finally, the agency would have to create enforcement mechanisms, such as fines or other penalties. This would involve determining what kinds of actions are likely to deter social media companies from behaving in ways deemed harmful under the law.
In the time it would take to set up such a system, we can assume that social media companies would evolve quickly, so regulators would likely be assessing a moving target. As I see it, even if bipartisan support develops for regulating social media, it will be easier said than done.
============================================================== Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, Heather Cox Richardson closed her Letter for December 14 with this: “[I]n June, the Supreme Court handed down the sweeping New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision requiring those trying to place restrictions on gun ownership to prove similar restrictions were in place when the Framers wrote the Constitution. Already, a Texas judge has struck down a rule preventing domestic abusers from possessing firearms on the grounds that domestic violence was permissible in the 1700s.” (Emphasis mine)
Originalism. If it isn’t checked, it will kill us all. And the founders would absolutely not have wanted it. They were not idiots – they knew that circumstances would change, and that government of, by, and for the people would need to change with them. They said so – including in the Constitution itself – if not, why would they have included in it a provision for amending it?
I do have one thought regarding the setting of the amounts of fines for non-compliance. Setting dollar amounts clearly doesn’t work – values change and fines simply become an accepted “cost of doing business.” We need to start settimg fines not as “no more than X dollars” but instead as “not greater than Z percent of the defendant’s total net worth,” or some other indicator. “Y percent of the degendant’s gross annual profits in the most recent year” might work.
Yesterday, I finally got to see Virgil. He had a new haircut and is looking good. I unfortunately had to leave early, but I didn’t feel terribly bad about that because this facility has a 7 and a half hour visiting day, and the longest anywhere else is six hours – the last one had only a 3 hour partial day, and I stayed long enough to exceed that. The reason for my leaving was a pain which I have always called a stitch in the side, but in looking ut up, I see that a side stitch is abdominal, and mine is not that – it is definitely above my waist. It is connected to the diaphragm somehow, because a deep breath temporarily worsens it. But it’s not exercise related – unless moving a couple of small tables is considered exercise – I certainly wouldn’t consider it so. It requires noticeable effort for me because of my miscellaneous mobility issues, but exercise? No. Whatever it is, it responded to ice and compression. A couple of other aches were also acting up, though not as badly, so after sending the weekly email I took a break.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
The Conversation – Faced with a rise of extremism within its ranks, the US military has clamped down on racist speech, including retweets and likes
Quote – A blue ribbon committee called the Countering Extremist Activity Working Group was quickly commissioned in April 2021 to evaluate the extent of the problem. The group found about 100 substantiated cases of extremism in the U.S. armed forces in 2021. The latest instance occurred in July 2022, when Francis Harker, a National Guard member with white supremacist connections, was sentenced to four years in prison for planning an anti-government attack on police. Harker, who carried a picture saying “there is no God but Hitler,” was planning to attack police officers in Virginia Beach, Virginia, with Molotov cocktails and semi-automatic rifles. Click through for story. It has always been necessary for anyone serving in the military -an anyone employed by the Government in any way – to limit heir use of free speech. Back in the day, however, the concern was that someone might mistake personal views for government policy. Now the concern is that worng use of free speech could get spmeone killed – or the government overthrown. Of course the military must clamp down. Hate speech IMO is not part of appropriate free speech.
