Monthly Archives: August 2016

Some Millennials Think Government Censorship is Good. Who Could They Have Learned That From?

Two days ago, I saw a Pew Research Center study that someone had just shared on Facebook. According to the study, forty percent of Millennials support government restrictions on speech that is offensive to minorities, while fifty-eight percent oppose such censorship. While forty percent is still well below a majority, people from older generations support censoring bigoted speech at far lower rates. The person who posted this study wrote, “A large percentage of Europeans and US Millennials are anti-free speech.” It took me about ten seconds to figure out what was wrong with that statement. Rather than providing information about generational views of various types of censorship, the polling data cited only focused on hate speech. There are two huge problems with this methodology. It ignores the fact that there have been many instances of government censorship throughout American history, and very few of them have involved hate speech. It also ignores the fact that Americans in older generations might be more supportive than Millennials of certain types of censorship, even though Millennials are more likely to support censoring hate speech.

A glance at some examples in American history prove that censorship has often been a go-to response by the State when confronted with speech that government officials dislike. John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts that outlawed “false,” “scandalous,” or “malicious” statements about the government. The federal government and a number of Southern states during the 1800s passed laws restricting abolitionist petitions and other writings. Government officials including Francis Scott Key tried to prosecute abolitionists for exercising their free speech. In the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson signed legislation that, similarly to the legislation Adams signed, effectively banned criticism of the government. In 1940, The U.S. government also passed legislation outlawing any organization that advocated the overthrow of the federal government, regardless of whether or not the members of such organizations were involved in specific violent acts or merely believed that the government deserved to be overthrown. This legal principle, by the way, would mandate throwing Donald Trump in prison, since he has more or less stated that Hillary Clinton should be killed if she is elected. In the 1950s, the government outlawed the Communist Party. Similarly, for much of the 20th century, people could face legal penalties merely for desecrating an American flag. It was not until the Supreme Court intervened in 1990 that this censorship finally ended. Since then, there have been multiple attempts to reverse this decision via a constitutional amendment so that people may once again be fined or imprisoned for protesting the government. Conservatives have favored these amendments at higher rates than liberals. It seems to suggest that a new adage might be in order: When you’re offended, it’s called an outrage, when another (often nonwhite/female/LGBT) person gets offended, it’s called oversensitivity.

There have also been a number of obscenity laws in America, some of which still exist today. For example, there was the Comstock Law that banned people from circulating erotica through the U.S. Postal Service. Or the time the Supreme Court said that there was no First Amendment right to obscene material. Currently, we have a government agency called the FCC that censors television in order to protect children from the terrible damage that briefly spotting Janet Jackson’s nipple might wreak upon them.

Shouldn’t we consider the possibility that older Americans are not more anti-censorship than Millennials but are simply more supportive of censorship in some areas and less supportive of censorship in others? For example, might Generation Xers, Baby Boomers, and the elderly support bans on flag burning, pornography, or sexually explicit T.V. shows at a higher rate than Millennials? I do not have solid statistical evidence one way or the other, but my own gut feeling says “Absolutely.” In any case, until we have assessed this possibility, we should not be labeling Millennials as more “anti-free speech” than any other generation. In fact, some data from Pew Research Center published two days before the study referenced above underscores this point. According to the authors, “Internet freedom tends to be especially important to younger people, as well as to those who say they use the internet at least occasionally or own a smartphone.” They also point out that, “In 16 of the 38 countries surveyed, people ages 18 to 29 are more likely than those ages 50 and older to say that people should be able to make sexually explicit statements in public. And young people in Europe, Canada, the U.S., Australia, South Korea, Russia and Senegal are more supportive than their elders of the press being able to publish sensitive information about national security issues.” Look, I know it’s tempting to blame the latest generation for everything wrong in the world and try to say that they’re the worst group of people ever. But let’s try to stick to facts.

For the record, I strongly oppose government censorship, and that includes censorship of bigoted speech. Censoring bigots drives them underground and can create the illusion that bigotry is no longer a serious problem. Furthermore, there is a risk that more extreme, “fringe” bigoted statements will get censored while more mainstream and therefore more dangerous bigoted statements will be protected. But if we are going to have government censorship, censoring hate speech is far better than most types of censorship. For instance, a ban on flag burning significantly muzzles protests against the government and would put the U.S. on the verge of a police State. On the other hand, bigoted speech denigrates entire groups of people based on immutable traits and can encourage hate crimes as well as helping to fuel mental health issues among the victims of bigotry, up to and including suicide in certain cases. Again, in a free society, we must not use the government to censor bigots, but it would still be a lot less ridiculous than banning an Anarchist from burning a cloth with the government’s logo on it or banning a breast from being exposed during the Super Bowl.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Dr. Putinlove: How A Lot Of Conservatives Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Russia

In the 1920s, ACLU founder Roger Nash Baldwin visited the Soviet Union. Baldwin was a left-wing Anarchist, in other words not exactly the type of person one would expect to praise a totalitarian state. Especially since Baldwin had rightfully fought against American conscription in World War I, and Russia gave working class men the “honor” of being forced into combat. Nonetheless, the tail wagged the dog. Baldwin gushed with praise at what he saw as the class equality in Russia in contrast to the ruthless capitalism of America. It would not be until Stalin cozied up to Hitler that Baldwin turned against the Soviet Union and became quite anticommunist. Baldwin learned his lesson far more quickly than many leftists. It was not altogether uncommon during the Cold War to see left wing Americans who fought admirably for civil rights and civil liberties in America feel extremely reluctant to condemn the Soviet Union. This problem was exacerbated by the official absence of racial discrimination in Russia, in contrast to the savage system of Jim Crow that received legal sanction until the 1960s and America’s longstanding reluctance to disassociate itself from the vicious Apartheid regime in South Africa. And Russia, which had its own history of ethnic cleansing against Jews, did provide us with “Red Westerns” that offered sympathetic portrayals of Native Americans and were a necessary corrective to the John Wayne-type fare.

Certainly, many civil libertarian leftists, Cold War liberal Democrats, and liberal Rockefeller Republicans took a strong anti-Soviet Union position. But the Right was far more unified than the Left against the Soviet Union, not primarily because of a fierce support for civil liberties but because the Soviet Union’s economic system was Communist, and its leaders a perceived threat to the U.S. Conservative politicians like Ronald Reagan could coddle brutal foreign governments such as South Africa and Iraq that were anticommunist,  but they could never coddle the Soviet Union. We all know what happened at the beginning of the 1990s. The Berlin Wall fell, the Soviet Union split apart, and Russian Communism died an inglorious death. Many conservatives still distrusted the Russian government. In 2008, John McCain stated that when he looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes, he saw the letters K, G, and B. In 2012, Mitt Romney stated that the U.S. must take a harder line against Putin. But apparently, at least when it comes to the American Right and Russia, to everything there is a season. And after 2012, things started to turn, turn, turn. In 2013, with Putin’s enthusiastic approval, Russia passed one of the most repressive antigay laws to be enacted in Europe in recent years. The law essentially makes it illegal to be an openly gay person in Russia and cracks down on gay adoptions. Russia had never been a particularly pleasant place to be a gay person. Homosexuality had been banned under the tsars, and after a brief respite, Stalin had brought the ban back with a vengeance. Post-Communism, Russia had generally lagged behind Western Europe on gay rights. But now, the Religious Right started to notice that as the United States was getting more liberal on gay rights, Russia was digging its heels in and passing harsher antigay legislation. The right-wing website WorldNetDaily devoted multiple columns to praising the antigay legislation. In one such column, the headline actually read: “Russia to Supplant U.S. As Human-Rights Leader.” Right-wing radio host and former American Family Association official, Bryan Fischer, called Putin a “lion of Christianity.”
“In my opinion, Putin is right on these issues,” Franklin Graham stated. “Obviously, he may be wrong about many things, but he has taken a stand to protect his nation’s children from the damaging effects of any gay and lesbian agenda … Isn’t it sad, though, that America’s own morality has fallen so far that on this issue – protecting children from any homosexual agenda or propaganda – Russia’s standard is higher than our own?”

Because none of the people and institutions I mentioned, except for Franklin Graham, are exactly household names within conservatism, I did not necessarily see their statements as part of a larger trend until Donald Trump became the Republican presidential nominee. Furthermore, Democrats were often too congenial towards Putin as well. Democratic politicians generally failed to push for a trade freeze in response to Russia’s repressive policies. I love Bernie Sanders, I am proud to have voted for him, and I would happily do it again, but during the primaries, he made the absurd suggestion to team up with Russia against ISIS. Bernie Sanders is a strong, longtime ally to the LGBT community, but he failed to adequately take Russia’s homophobia into account with this proposal. But now Trump has gone far beyond Democrats in his friendly relations with Putin. He not only wants to ally with Putin, he has also praised the Russian leader, and tried to soft pedal Putin’s repression of journalists and brutal actions in Crimea. While promising to protect LGBT people from Islamic terrorists, he has nary a word to say about the persecution of LGBT people by Russia. Trump says that he has “always felt fine” about Putin and praised him as a leader. Trump’s response when asked about Putin’s violence against journalists and political opponents is telling: “I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe,” the Republican standard bearer said. “There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is. But you didn’t ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question. So that’s fine.” This sounds exactly like what an American Communist Party official would have said about Soviet repression during the Cold War. One of the funniest things about all of this is that Russia’s continued atrocities could provide former Cold Warriors with an opportunity to say that their criticisms of the country were correct. For example, now that Russia is no longer trying to appeal to disaffected American minorities and African and Asian nations as part of an effort to win the Cold War, we now see that Russia portraying itself as a land of racial equality was a con game. Large swathes of Russian spectators act like they are at a KKK rally during sporting events, to the point that the country’s ability to host the World Cup is in jeopardy. Athletes who engage in blatantly racist behavior are rewarded by Putin. Racial violence is rampant. But while some conservatives do draw attention to this, too many suddenly don’t seem to care about Russian atrocities anymore, because Putin is a “real leader.”

What all of this showcases is that for many conservatives, the Soviet Union was bad because it was Communist, not because it violated human rights and civil liberties per se. Certainly, plenty of conservatives still oppose the Russian government. But the most prominent, outspoken defenders of Russia now come primarily from the Right. Who would have imagined that thirty years ago?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized