When I came across a New Jersey Star-Ledger guest column by George E. Norcross III, I perked up. The title is Norcross: You need a tough skin to be a responsible adult … and citizen | A 2022 commencement essay. I thought, great: Norcross’s message to college graduates would be an attack on cancel culture.
Not so.
Instead, Norcross wants to strangle their expression by strangling their means of expression.
After admonitions to be treated like, and to act like, an adult, Norcross says
My advice to you is come into it with your eyes wide open to what our society is becoming — in New Jersey. In the United States and throughout the world. Being blunt — you need to have a thick skin because the culture we live in is increasingly unforgiving, even for minor errors — even for those who are just moving forward with their lives.
True. This is what we broadly call “cancel culture''. I’m not sure how much worse, if it is worse, our society has been in past eras compared to “what our society is becoming.” But it is horrible, especially since so many people are intellectually shallow, and allow themselves to be governed by emotion over reason. Of course, human culture has never been particularly forgiving. When has it not been good to have a thick skin? But at least Norcross is calling on young people to deal with it and fight back. Or at least I thought.
Why is it getting tougher out there? Maybe it’s because people are meaner, but I think there’s more to it than that. Social media platforms have made everyone a critic where there is no barrier to entry. It’s easy. It’s free. It’s immediate. And, it can be anonymous.
Yes. And that’s great. Social media has given the average person a platform from which to criticize powers-that-be, from politicians to mainstream media. More than that, people can advocate, express themselves, participate in national debates on the issues of the day, before wide audiences, like never before. Yes, some abuse that new-found power. But it is power—power to the ordinary person to call out politicians, big traditional media, and other prominent voices whose big megaphones allowed them to control the intellectual narratives. The free-wheeling intellectual discourse now open to untold millions of ordinary folks threatens that power of the elites.
And that’s what Norcross wants to stifle.
News organizations are held to a correctly high libel standard under the law. Believe me, I know what I’m talking about. Both as a subject of the media’s attention and as a publisher as I used to own The Philadelphia Inquirer. In let’s call it the mainstream media, it is very hard to attack with no basis when there is a libel standard.
But the protection isn’t there on today’s social media platforms. It’s a terrible mistake that Congress made in 1996 to exempt online platforms from liability based on content that people post on their sites. This must be corrected.
Social media platforms are not traditional newspapers. They are platforms, not publishers. Publishers are responsible for what they publish. On social media, the user is the publisher, not the company. What makes social media such free-wheeling free speech platforms is that the platform companies cannot be held liable for what the users—the actual publishers—say. And that’s how it should be. That’s justice.
Norcross says treat graduates like adults. But if social media loses its liability protection, it will be forced to police all content published by their users, for fear of being sued for what the supposed adults say. This will have the effect of stifling the free expression of ordinary folks, including the college graduates Norcross is addressing. “Why,” Norcross asks, “must this be corrected?”
Because Facebook, Twitter and YouTube by not taking responsibility for the content posted on their sites are undermining democracy and making the lives of so many people truly miserable.
So freedom of expression, dissent, criticism, and public debate is “undermining democracy” if posted by ordinary people. What about those mainstream news organizations that Norcross sheds tears over? Have you ever seen the kind of viscous rubbage that they publish? And that’s fine, too. Just leave the rest of us the freedom to counter-speech.
Yes, ordinary people being able to express themselves is now easy, free, immediate, and, yes, anonymous. And that’s great. How in hell does that “undermine democracy?” True, it may undermine the political incumbents and mainstream media domination of the intellectual discourse. That’s great, too. And true, people post mean thoughtless stuff. Ignore it, or fight back with counterspeech--or libel lawsuits. Contrary to Norcross’s implication, social media publishers are subject to the same libel laws as traditional publishers.
Norcross laments that “Too often commencement addresses offer platitudes of leading a good life, seizing the opportunity and blah, blah, blah.” So what does he do? Worse. He uses his opportunity to push an anti-free speech political agenda, even citing former president Barack Obama’s call “for regulating these social media platforms to help save our democracy,” and which I critiqued as Obama's Disingenuous ‘Defense’ of the First Amendment.
The 1996 law that Norcross deplores is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That law shields internet companies who merely supply the platform for publishers from liability for what the users publish. That protection must be maintained if we are to protect the new-found freedom of expression average people now enjoy. That’s how you treat new college grads as adults. Let them express themselves -- and take responsibility for what they say. Don’t silence them. Leave them to be the tough skinned responsible adults and citizens you wish them to be.
To be fair, Norcross does finish with some sound advice. In the absence of social media regulation, he urges, take on “the responsibility to act as adults in a democratic society.”
You don’t need to agree with my political views or those of your friends. But… you do need to behave responsibly. Being critical of policies you oppose is the duty you have as citizens.
That means you’re going to need to have tougher skin and at the same time understand the difference between news and vindictive personal attacks on these platforms.
You also need to distinguish real news on your feed. . .
Know, too, that you can’t be afraid of attacks. You will need a tough exterior to bat away anonymous criticism that your friends and family will see as well. Be a responsible citizen. Use social media as a form of connecting with people but don’t confuse that content for news.
I would be more blunt, and say what Norcross should have said. Don’t think about silencing people you disagree with by, for example, neutering Section 230. That's what the elites want. Instead, use your own internet freedom constructively. For those who might be tempted by Norcross’s and Obama’s calls for government involvement in this country’s intellectual discourse, I urge, “Instead, get off of your lazy mental ass and do the work of fact-checking, consulting of experts, considering of all opinions no matter how outrageous or offensive you may deem them, doing your own thinking, fighting back when necessary with your own counter-speech, and focussing on ideas.”
That’s what “democracy”—or more precisely the democratic process in a constitutionally limited republic based on inalienable individual rights—actually demands. The government has no role in regulating the intellectual discourse of its citizens. Don't grant them that power.
Related Reading:
Obama's Disingenuous ‘Defense’ of the First Amendment
Trump Joins Biden in War on the Average Person’s Newfound Power to be Heard
Internet Free Markets and the false claim of Social Media Monopoly Power
Politicians Want to Destroy Section 230, the Internet's First Amendment: Four myths about the law that made the modern internet possible. -- ELIZABETH NOLAN BROWN AND PAUL DETRICK for Reason
Social Media and the Future of Civil Society -- Jon Hersey for The Objective Standard
Many of the bureaucrats and commentators behind these laws and initiatives against social-media companies share essentially the same tactic. They blame social-media companies for not doing what governments are supposed to do—protect individual rights—and then rationalize that this supposed failure is grounds for doing what governments are not supposed to do—violate individual rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment