I generally respect Richard Hasen, the election law expert, though a few times he said things I found stupid. For instance, Hasen decided to repeat multiple times the idea there was no reason to filibuster Neil Gorsuch, that it would do no good, and it might help (if you did not) when the next nominee came along. Shades of "hold your fire" when Roberts were nominated and nothing really happened with Alito.
Disagreements aside, including his argument that a sort of "skinny" voting rights bill should be promoted [basically negotiating against yourself and it was pointless since you STILL had the filibuster], he is well worth reading. He has had a few smallish books now though the content largely overlaps (if with more explanation and notes in one space) what you can find online.
His latest is about the dangers "cheap speech," widely available information without the filters of past days. The first chapter starts with 1/6 and the 2020 Election as a whole. Hasen in a somewhat emotional moment dedicates the book to the "heroes" [I quote here, it's not sarcastic] who defended us and a fair election on that date.
[At one point, Hasen notes that the 2016 Trump campaign did not collude with Russia to interfere with the election. Without at least a bit of nuance, that is wrong. There were multiple cases involving his son/son-in-law as well as his campaign manager and that creepy guy with a Dick Tracy villain look (Roger Stone) where they worked with Russians somehow, including trying to get dirt, giving poll data to a Russian agent, and helping leak materials.]
"Cheap speech" is the sort of thing provided on this blog, music able to be downloaded on YouTube, and all the information provided on the web. This includes information that is filtered -- such as SSRN based articles -- as well as things largely not (like a range of things on Twitter though that can be a mix depending on who is speaking).
This information explosion is good and bad. It provides of useful information and engagement. But, bad speech can also crowd out the good. This is a sort of "lemon" problem, based on an old economic paper talking about how the amount of untrustworthy bad used cars (lemons) made it hard for people to trust the good ones. Carfax now helps that.
Older viewers are more likely to rely on bad speech. Younger ones are cynical and think it all is bad. Hasen opposed a constitutional amendment to deal with Citizens United (for various reasons) and only goes so far with limits here. He supports things like more regulation of foreign involvement in elections, disclosure laws (including of "deep fakes" / altered content), defamation laws, and perhaps stronger antitrust rules.
A few less well known options are suggested. One thing I'm wary about is not allow micro-targeting (of specific groups, collection data that people are not really fully aware of). Hasen also supports outlawing blatant lies ("you can vote by tweet") though lines here might be tricky (the whole stop the steal bullshit). Disclosure laws can also address use of algorithms by Facebook and other platforms, which have been shown to favor Trump and invite reading divisive/sketchy content to get more clicks.
Many things are not going to be done by law. One thing is to keep the law from stopping certain things, like the idea that Twitter should be treated as a common carrier that has to accept all comers. Also, basic legal structures such as reliable electoral institutions and the courts are very important. It is downright scary to note the number of Republican trolls who will be in leadership roles in upcoming elections.
Self-regulation, encouraged by pressure from inside and out, of such things like Facebook and Twitter is important. Means to support traditional media, if carried out on new platforms (such as online), is also important. Such media can be funded by certain very well off people (such as Washington Post/Amazon) and by the public. Various regions, however, are "media desserts."
Again, the law should recognize the press has certain value, and can in various ways (such as access to courts, source protection, and certain limits from campaign rules) be treated differently. And, ultimately, it is up to each person to be an informed citizen, a careful consumer. This is something that has to be learned, taught, and promoted. See, for instance, this good book aims for teens on analyzing truth.
[A snapshot of cheap speech's dark side is seen by the attacks of a woman chosen to be on an advisory board set up by the Department of Homeland Security on the threat of disinformation.]
I had one limited (was it even a full year? do recall the teacher was not very good) class in high school focused on current events. Recall needing to write short papers on various news items or something. But, students should not only have civics classes each year; they need a constant lesson on how to think and be an informed consumer of facts and knowledge.
There was an old ad line where the "informed consumer is the best customer." I'm not sure that is really right in the mind of many companies. It still is a good thing to promote.
---
* One thing to add is that the book references the limits of the "marketplace of ideas" concept where the answer to bad speech is "more speech." In various respects, this does not work, and bad speech might be more powerful. Shades of The Cult of the Constitution.
This simplistic libertarian view (Holmes) should be balanced with a more democratic/citizenship model, where the intelligent citizens needs to be informed (Brandeis ... modern day Breyer) with some limits and regulation to make sure this is possible.
My heart was with the libertarian view, but in time -- especially in light of certain MAGA type comments online -- I see there are some limits. At the very least, the libertarian model is a bit too simplistic though I still question something like obscenity bans.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!