An Essay by Pauline Masson
It might sound ungraceful to say, ‘I don’t give advice and I don’t accept advice from anyone else.’ It’s true, I don’t, in either case. But its a misleading truth.
Because, I suppose, of my willingness to voice inconvenient truths, it may appesar that I know exactly what I think on each and every subject, and I’m not about to change my mind. Almost the opposite is true. I ponder every point of view: read, research, review, revisit, rake through the minor points – and ponder.
I have wrestled thoughout adulthood about how I feel about big issues.
My opponents have a right their point of view. My detractors are often correct in their take on the stand I have adopted on a given issue. But my point of view, once I reach it, is my point of view. I’m not going to change it because someone I like doesn’t agree with it.
I was once in a large panel of candidates for a jury trial of a man who had committed murder. During the voirdoir the defense attorney singled me out. “If this man is found guilty, can you vote for capital punishment?” I stared at him tongue tied. I didn’t know. I couldn’t answer anything that big, that fast. I was not selected for the jury.
The big question that puzzles me these days is free speech.
Yeah, yeah, I know that you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. But I’ve been pretty consistent in my belief that people should be able to express their point of view on almost any subject. Once I work through all my research and pondering, I’m willing to put my point of view out there without worrying about who will agree or disagree.
But the world has outpaced me. I blame the Internet. In today’s climate of global communication, people are saying the most outragious things in print. Insult on top of insult to belittle, expose, hurt, and humiliate other individual fill up the soft media platforms. Even mainstream news organizations now define their opinions and people they don’t like in profane terms.
But if it is any consolation, in the practice of disagreeing without being disageeable, help is on the way.
In February the United State Supreme Court listened to arguments on who can be held accountable when harmful things are put in print and posted on the Internet.
The principal arguments centered on whether Google, YouTube and Twitter can be sued if someone feels they’ve been harmed when the Internet giants use algorithms to steer viewers to other links where what is posted could be inaccurate, misleading or even dangerous.
The primary question in the case is can the big platforms could be sued, for misleading or inaccurate information posted on those sites.
The Supreme Court dug so deep into the question that they landed on small town soft media use, like the plethora of blogs and Facebook pages that have captivated Internet uses in our town.
The center of the debate is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act written in 1996 to protect the growth of the early internet. This was a special form of legal immunity that Congress created for websites so they could develop without worrying about being sued. The big platforms used this law protect themselves if someone said something on their platform that offended someone else.
The court heard arguments in February on a pair of cases that centered on Section 230. Now the justices are closeted in their mahogany paneled enclave trying to determine whether to narrow or end that protection – and that affects all of us amateur Internet surfers.
With my customary uncertainty, I see this as both good and bad: The Court’s decision might persuade some soft media visitors to clean up their language, but it might also stop some pundits from saying what needs to be said. Although it is going largely unnoticed this may be the biggest free speech question to face the high court in decades, or ever.
This is a two sided issue, with some court watchers claiming that an all or nothing ruling could allow people to say anything that crosses their minds and others saying it would shut down the Internet, especially small town social media providers who cannot afford to defend themselves in lawsuits.
One justice worried that a ruling against the big Internet platforms would either force sites to take down any content that a user posts on their site that could be remotely problematic or to allow all content no matter how vile.
So what this case means to our local Facebook platforms is this: If the court cuts the protection from lawsuit back too far, users might be afraid to say anything on their blogs or Facebook pages. Or if they leave it in tact, we may see even more exagerated ways to express local admiration and outrage.
The case is still pending so stay tuned.
Cool, I’ve been looking for this one for a long time
_________________
आईपीएल टी20 2023 स्क्वाड
Local officials, whether elected, appointed or hired, can easily cool the rancor on local media by simply avoiding even the appearance of not being prudent in the handling of tax payer funds.
Deals that come out of nowhere, often covered in closed sessions, that favor, or have the appearance of favoring, a friend , contractor, or developer over the fiscal needs of the tax payer are what brings on questions impropriety.
If deals have to be hashed out in closed sessions, do not complete the transaction till all the negotiations undergo revue in a public forum . Show some trust in the citizens, listen and learn, then vote. No more ‘ here is the resolution’ and vote with out any public explanation of how and why.
Pauline, I believe, on a national or even on an international basis, the unwillingness to change an individuals thinking when the evidence points to the opposite, has done more to destroy lives, corrupt governments (including the United States), caused wars, famines, and more. While you are probably one of the most thoughtful individuals in Pacific, I would challenge you on a few issues. Before listing just a few, I should first give you a couple of quotes: “It is easier to be fooled than to accept the fact that you have been fooled.” (I haven’t been able to find the author of this statement). When a well-packed web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” Dresden James
Without knowing, I would challenge your beliefs on just a few events in history. I hope you can prove me wrong.
1. The cause of the sinking of the USS Maine that lead to the Spanish-American war and the deaths of millions in the Phillipines.
2. FDR not knowing ahead of time that Japan was going to attack Pearl Harbor.
3. The attack on the USS Liberty and President Johnson’s involvement.
4. The assassination of JFK
5. The truth about the Holocaust.
6. The apartheid treatment of the Palestinians and crimes against humanity that has been going on in the Middle East for over 75 years.
7. Who was responsible for 9/11?
8. Abortion.
This may be unfair to put you on the spot, and if so, I apologize. You can ignore answering any of the questions. I carefully avoided statements about Churchill and Truman since in the past you have made positive praise for these guys. What an interesting time we live in. Hope I can stick around a few more years to see the outcome.
I’m really intimidated by this. Although it did send me on www search on the USS Maine, I have many theories that I don’t share publicly because I live largely in a black and white world where I see 256 shades of gray. My theories often shock people – even people I’m close to. But what jumped out at me, here, is the Holocaust. Share with me, what you think is the truth about that. I’ve spent the last year watching documentaries on Germany leading up to and through WWII. I’ve been amazed at the different perspectives that the various modern historians, authors and presenters offer. I’m fascinated by the German ethos of devotion to a selected leader. I, personally, have never been devoted to a single idea or individual. When I look at the Trump followers here, I don’t see the orange make-up and the braggadocio (I ran into him once when I was in New York) I see the followers and their search for recapturing a past that they feel was stolen from them, much like the 1920s, 30s and 40s Germans. I am the most Liberal person I have ever met, I am so liberal that I absolutely value and honor the quest that drives the MAGA crowd. So, the truth about the Holocaust? Tell me your thoughts. Oh, and I’m looking at all the other topics.
Richard Browning: all your topics have complex answers and no one answer to an historian. “Send me the pictures, and I will send the war,” is attributed to William Randolph Hearst (by the way, his parents were from St. Clair and Sullivan) and to a certain extent, that was true. Real historical analysis of events is complex and rarely is there a single answer to why something occurred.
However what is lacking on the internet, which the Supreme Court will be addressing, are three things: civility, third party editing, and a respect for the “truth” as much as one can determine it. These have been replaced by self-serving greed, lack of respect for ti ii, and no human editing or vetting. Without those things, civilization and democracy falls. . freedom of speech is good, but if everyone is lying it is useless.
Will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does.