Mediaboss Marketing

from the better-late-than-ignored-indefinitely dept

Its 2022 and yet we still havent received a nationwide blessing from the countrys top court that recognizes a First Amendment right to record public officials carrying out their public duties. In most cases, this involves cops, whose public activities are far more public than those of most other public servants.

For whatever reason, the Supreme Court has avoided establishing precedent, despite the omnipresence of cameras carried in the pockets of every cell phone owner in America. Cell phone video has proven instrumental in several police misconduct cases, perhaps most importantly in the George Floyd case, where a witness video helped secure a murder conviction for white police officer Derek Chauvin, who knelt on the unarmed Floyds neck for nearly 10 minutes, ending the arrestees life.

Maybe the nations top court is just waiting for a case that it likes. Its had plenty of opportunities to affirm this right but has ignored them. The court that seems poised to overturn nearly 50 years of reproductive rights may just be waiting for a complicated case that allows it to tip its hat to the First Amendment while erecting all sorts of exceptions that make a right-to-record meaningless. The Supreme Courts history as a protector of police, rather than the people they serve, makes it the worst option for the establishment of citizens rights. But its also the only option for people seeking precedent that would force every cop anywhere in the nation to play by the rules.

Until the Supreme Court decides to address this issue, its up to appellate courts to define precedent in the jurisdictions they preside over. This may create a legal patchwork, but at least the patches encompass several states, rather than small jurisdictions within certain states.

Right now, another appellate court is being asked to affirmatively recognize a right to record police officers. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which presides over Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Utah, and New Mexico is handling a case involving a plaintiff who sued after Colorado police officers prevented him from recording a traffic stop. Here are the details, as reported by Colleen Slevin for the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

In the Colorado lawsuit, Abade Irizarry said he was filming a police traffic stop in the city of Lakewood when he claimed Officer Ahmed Yehia stood in front of the camera to block Irizarry from recording. The officer was on foot shined a flashlight into Irizarrys camera and the camera of another blogger. Then Yehia left the two, got into his cruiser and sped the cruiser toward the two bloggers, the lawsuit said. The cruiser swerved before reaching the bloggers and they were not hit, according to the lawsuit.

The case was heard in federal court in Denver, where a magistrate judge sided with lawyers for Yehia and dismissed it last year, agreeing with Yehias lawyers, who contended the right to record police was not clearly established by the time of the incident in 2019.

Fortunately for Irizarry, he has more than usual rights groups in his corner. None other than the US Department of Justice is advocating on Irizarrys behalf, arguing in favor of citizens right to record. The DOJ filed its own amicus brief last fall. Somehow, despite this being forwarded to the 10th Circuit nearly a year ago, it has yet to issue a ruling. It is just now hearing oral arguments on the case and, again, the DOJ is helping Irizarry out, arguing again that citizens have a right to record police officers.

Natasha Babazadeh, an attorney for the Justice Departments Civil Rights Division, urged a three-judge panel from the court to rule in that filming police is a constitutional right and said there has been an increase in the number of lawsuits filed against police by people saying they could not record them in public.

If the court sides with the plaintiff (and there seems to be little reason why it shouldnt), this would establish a right to record in the Tenth Circuit, bringing the total to seven out of thirteen circuits that have established this right. The addition of this precedent would make it that much more difficult for the Supreme Court to continue ignoring an issue that has been steadily gaining momentum for the past two decades.

Unfortunately, the establishment of a right to record wont do much for this plaintiff. It will probably be argued (successfully) that the lack of precedent did not make it clear officers could not directly impede the plaintiffs efforts to record the traffic stop. This will probably still be the conclusion even though these police officers were on notice as early as 2014 that there was presumptive right to record based on precedent established in other circuits.

But courts should refuse to continue humoring this sort of law enforcement gamesmanship. On one hand, cops love to argue anything that can be seen by passersby has no inherent expectation of privacy. But on the other hand, they argue anything they do that can be witnessed by passersby is somehow more deserving of an expectation of privacy or at least, a large number of restrictions that would allow officers to go about their business with no permanent (outside) record of their actions. This is de facto bullshit and should not be given credence by courts. Hopefully, the Tenth Circuit will establish this right going forward and, in doing so, force the Supreme Court to again take notice of an issue it has chosen to neglect.

Filed Under: 10th circuit, 1st amendment, abade irizarry, ahmed yehia, recording police

Originally posted here:
10th Circuit Appeals Court Asked To Recognize A First Amendment Right To Record Cops - Techdirt

In court, "truth" is more subjective than you may think.

THIS CASE IS DEAD AS WELL. AN 18 YEAR-OLD. >> HI, EVERYBODY. HELLO THERE. I'M DAN HAGGERTY. THIS IS THE PART OF THE NEWSCAST. WE DISCUSS THE NEWS A LITTLE BIT NOW WORKING ON A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. BUT I DO WANT TO CHECK IN CHECK IN WITH YOU QUICKLY TONIGHT IN JUST A COUPLE OF E-MAILS BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN SENDING SO MANY OF THEM LIKE BETSY FROM CHAPEL HILL, WHO IS APPARENTLY A BIG FAN, BUT SHE'S A LITTLE CONFLICTED. SHE EMAILS DAN WRAL DOT COM AND SAID THIS. WE FIND OURSELVES TO BE JEOPARDY. LOYALISTS IN COMMERCIAL BREAKS. WE SWITCHED WRAL NEWS. IF YOU'RE RUNNING AN IN-DEPTH FEATURE, WE'VE CAUGHT A FEW, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHEN YOUR SEGMENTS TYPICALLY RUN ARE THE WEEKLY OR ARE THEY ON A PARTICULAR DAY AND WE JUST HAVE NOT FOUND A PATTERN YET. THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A PATTERN YET, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. I'M TRYING TO BUILD A LITTLE BIT OF A TEAM POSSIBLY AND HOPEFULLY SOON WILL BE DOING SOMETHING EVERY NIGHT. IN THE MEANTIME, THAT C. WHO CARES ABOUT JEOPARDY. HONESTLY, I KNOW IT'S ON THE SAME TIME AS ME. I KNOW IT RECENTLY PASSED 60 MINUTES TO BECOME THE MOST WATCHED NON-SPORTS SHOW ON TV. BUT LET'S SEE. DO YOU REALLY WANT TO FOLLOW THE PACK AND WATCH ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR THINGS IN AMERICAN CULTURE OR AND HEAR ME OUT HERE OR >> YOU WANT TO WATCH ME. >> A GUY SPENDS SOMETIMES 8 STRAIGHT MINUTES TALKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE BRIAN AND THE OLD SUPREME COURT OPINIONS TO A COOLER THAT WAY. IN FACT, YOU CAN FIND EVERYTHING I TALK ABOUT ON WRAL'S NEW YOUTUBE CHANNEL HAVE AN ENTIRE PLAYLIST CALLED IN DEPTH WITH DAN HAGGERTY WERE STILL KIND OF FINE TUNING THE VISUALS. IF YOU LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THE THUMBNAILS LIKE THIS ONE DOESN'T EXACTLY SAY LOOK AT ME, I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING SMART, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON IT. OKAY. SO PLEASE STICK WITH US. YOU'LL FIND ALL THE TOPICS THAT YOU EMAIL ME ABOUT THAT WE DISCUSS HERE DURING THIS SEGMENT LIKE MY RECENT DISCUSSION WITH YOU ABOUT POLITICAL ADS, YOU MAY REMEMBER THAT WE TALKED TO A LAWYER WHO WORKS WITH CAMPAIGNS TO CHECK THEIR ADS BEFORE THEY AIR. IT CONFIRMED TO US SOMETHING THAT WAS KIND OF HARD TO BELIEVE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT EFFECTIVELY THESE CANDIDATES CAN LIE IN THESE ACTS BECAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. AND IN THAT SEGMENT, I DISCUSSED THE CONCERNS THAT A VIEWER NAMED CAROL SHARED WITH ME RECENTLY. CARROLL SAID DAN. I WONDER ABOUT THE ETHICS OF THE STATIONS TO RUN ADS. IF THE AD IS DECLARED FALSE, BY FACT, CHECKED, WHY IS THE AD NOT PULLED THE MONEY? IS THE MONEY VALUED ABOVE THE TRUTH. I'M DISTURBED BY AS NOT BEING PULLED THE NEGATIVE. CHERI BEASLEY AD IS ONE THAT STICKS OUT. AND I KNOW THAT IT FEELS KIND OF STRANGE, BUT THE TRUTH ISN'T NECESSARILY PART OF THAT TRANSACTION. AND IN COURT, TRUTH IS MORE SUBJECTIVE THAN YOU MAY THINK. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE PEOPLE LIKE PAUL SPAY AND POLITIFACT TO EXPLAIN THE FREE SPEECH THAT YOU HEAR DURING OUR COMMERCIAL BREAK. SOMETIMES PAUL CARROLL MENTION CHERI BEASLEY AND ADD THAT RUNS ON OUR AIR MAKING SOME CLAIMS ABOUT HER RULINGS AND A DEATH SENTENCE CASE AND AN ASSAULT ON A MINOR. >> THE FORMER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE CHERI BEASLEY GO EASY ON DEFENDANTS IN A PAIR OF SENSITIVE CASES. THAT'S WHAT THE NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE SUGGEST ITS NEW ATTACK AD. TAKE A LOOK. >> THE WORST THING COMES. THE STATION AND CHIEF JUSTICE SHERRY BEASLEY FAILED TO PROTECT THEM. THE MURDERER SHOW DOUBLING THE FACE BC. THEY CAME TO HIS SON'S MEN CONVICTED OF SEXUALLY ASSAULTING A 7 YEAR-OLD GIRL. SHE THREW OUT THE INDICTMENT. >> BEASLEY IS A DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN NORTH CAROLINA'S U.S. SENATE RACE WILL TAKE ON REPUBLICAN TED BUDD IN NOVEMBER. THE AD MAKES 2 CLAIMS ABOUT HER THAT SHE VACATED THE DEATH SENTENCE FOR SOMEONE WHO SHOT A TEENAGER AND THAT SHE THREW OUT THE INDICTMENT OF A MAN CONVICTED OF ASSAULTING A YOUNG GIRL. THE AD IS SOMEWHAT ACCURATE. BUT LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING NEITHER OF THESE CASES WAS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S ACTIONS AND THE DEATH SENTENCE CASE. A MAN HAD BEEN CONVICTED OF MURDERING A 17 YEAR-OLD. HE WAS INITIALLY GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY. BUT THEN YOU SOMETHING CALLED THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT TO GET HIS SENTENCE REDUCED TO LIFE IN PRISON. STATE LAWMAKERS THEN REPEAL THE RACIAL JUSTICE ACT AND THE STATE SUPREME COURT WAS ASKED SHOULD THE MEN BE SENT BACK TO DEATH ROW BEASLEY IN THE COURT RULED NO, THAT WOULD BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY. SO HE'LL SERVE LIFE IN PRISON. AS FOR THE CASE WITH THE YOUNG GIRL, THE MAN WHO HAD BEEN CONVICTED ARGUED TO HAVE HIS CASE THROWN OUT BECAUSE PROSECUTORS DIDN'T COMPLY WITH STATE LAW AS IT APPLIES TO IDENTIFYING HIS ACCUSER. THE INDICTMENT REFERRED ONLY TO THE GIRL AS VICTIM ONE. THE COURT RULED 42 THAT THE INDICTMENT DID NOT DISTINGUISH THE DEFENDANT ACCUSER FROM OTHER VICTIMS. BEASLEY IN THE 3 OTHER CITED THIS STATE LAW WHICH SAYS INDICTMENTS MUST HAVE SOME FORM OF IDENTIFYING INFORMATION FOR THE VICTIM. SO ALTOGETHER, THAT AD HAD SOME ACCURATE INFORMATION, BUT IT LEAVES OUT A LOT OF IMPORTANT CONTEXT AND THAT'S WHY THE TREATIES OR A GET AFTER IT. >> TO READ MORE ABOUT THOSE CASES, GO TO WRAL DOT COM. THANKS TO PAUL TRYING TO HELP US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SEE IN THESE ADS AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE PLENTY MORE AS WE APPROACH THE NOVEMBER ELECTION. BUT THERE'S A LOT MORE IN GENERAL TO TALK ABOUT. SO PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT DAN. >> AT WRAL DOT COM, NOT TRY TO RESPOND TO EVERY SINGLE E-MAIL. PLEASE BE PATIENT. I GET A TON OF THEM. SO IF YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RESPONSE YET, TRUST ME. I'M WORKING ON IT. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY BE PERSISTENT. LIKE KARL WHO SAID, I ENJOY YOUR PROVOKING DISCUSSIONS OF CONTROVERSIAL QUESTIONS, BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE PRESSING ISSUE TREATED. WHAT HAPPENED WITH KAT CAMPBELL IS VISIT TO ICELAND. WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GET DAILY REPORTS WITH PICTURES OF WATERFALLS AND VOLCANOES, ET CETERA. BUT I SAW ONLY ONE ON THE FIRST DAY OF ARRIVAL WITH A HUGE CHURCH. THEN SUDDENLY SHE WAS BACK ON THE AIR AS IF NOTHING HAD HAPPENED. NO WORD MENTION OF ICELAND, WRAL TRYING TO COVER SOMETHING UP. YES. IS A SECRET AGENT.

Read this article:
First amendment allows political ads to run -- even if they have misleading statements - WRAL News

Many drivers consider their cars an extension of themselves and their personalities. Thats why its not terribly uncommon for drivers to drop thousands of dollars on custom paint jobs or other body modifications. With a bit of mechanical expertise, you can even add custom horn sounds to your car. However, horns are, first and foremost, a car safety issue.

Most of us dont appreciate excessive car horn blaring, but its hard to control the actions of other drivers. In fact, some people would even say that limiting how much one can honk infringes on free speech. What do the courts have to say about honking your car horn and the First Amendment?

According to AAA, the first Klaxon car horn was introduced in the early 1900s. Back in those days, it was considered polite to fire off an ahooga at pedestrians and other drivers. Still, just like today, it was primarily installed as a safety feature.

Car horn units are located under the hood, usually behind the grille or the front firewall. When you press down on the horn at the wheel, it sends electric currents into a metal diaphragm. The vibrations caused by this diaphragm can produce between 100-110 decibels.

Eventually, the Klaxon was swapped out for electric car horns in the 1930s. Since then, the car horn has received minimal upgrades, though mostly just material swaps.

In most cases, judges wont recognize honking your horn as exercising your First Amendment rights. In 1985, one driver claimed that he was allowed to repeatedly honk in traffic because it was his right of expressive conduct.

According to the First Amendment Encyclopedia, New York law states that he only should have been honking his horn if he was in danger. In order to violate the First Amendment, something must restrict the viewpoint or content of an individual. New Yorks law to reduce noise pollution and traffic noise does neither.

Another driver, Lori Compas, contested that she was allowed to honk her horn as much as she pleased because it was in protest. She thought that a parking lot for recreational vehicles had no place in a national park, so she used her horn to express that. The judge argued that honking your horn to express displeasure at something is not the kind of protest protected by the Constitution.

One Oregon court argued that banning horn honking could be seen as restricting free expression. The court made the case that using your horn to sound off a friendly greeting shouldnt be illegal. Such a harmless act is one thing, but breaking another law or causing a public disturbance with your honking is another.

In many cities, its illegal to honk your horn unless you or another driver is in immediate danger. You know those quick, happy beeps you might make when passing a friend on the road or at a stoplight? An officer might give you a ticket for that, possibly costing a few hundred dollars.

It might seem harsh, but beeping your horn at a friend encourages your friend to honk back. Other drivers probably dont appreciate getting stuck in the middle of a screeching conversation between two vehicles. At that point, youre both disrupting traffic and possibly disturbing the peace.

Likewise, you shouldnt honk your horn just because someone is making you angry. Obviously, a quick honk before someone cuts you off can prevent injury to everyone. However, if someones music is too loud or you spy an ugly bumper sticker, its better to look the other way.

Unrestrained car horns arent just annoying: theyre also not that great for your ears. Any excessive noise louder than 70 decibels can cause hearing damage over a long period of time.

The bottom line is that were not in the 20th century anymore. Unless you live in another country with more pedestrian traffic, most drivers wont appreciate excessive honking on their morning commutes. Free speech is obviously important, but theres more value in using our voices (and honks) for constructive purposes.

RELATED: Is It Illegal to Beep Your Horn at a Cop Car?

Visit link:
Is Honking Your Car Horn a First Amendment Right? - MotorBiscuit

The federal law is clear that social media companies generally cannot be held liable for the speech that is posted on their platforms. Despite this, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), at the urging of N.Y. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D), has launched an investigation of the role of social media companies in the tragic mass shooting in Buffalo, which 13 people were shot, 10 of them killed.

The alleged shooter used social media platforms, such as Twitch, 4chan, and Discord, to plot and livestream the mass shooting, according to federal law enforcement sources. The investigation is intended to look into the role of these companies and other online resources and platforms that the alleged shooter used to express White supremacist views and his desire for violence.

It is not clear what James or Hochul hope will come from the investigation. The clear implication is that the social media platforms share the blame for the tragic shooting. There are calls to do more to prevent social media from being used to disseminate hate speech.

There is nothing objectionable about asking social media companies to do a better job of excluding speech that is awful but lawful, such as expressions of hate and White supremacy. The internet is full of vile and hateful material. It would be a better world if no one had these views or expressed them.

But the government cannot force platforms to moderate lawful speech. Social media companies are private entities andunlike the governmentthey do not have to comply with the First Amendment. They get to decide what content to include on their sites and what to exclude.

Although there are some limited areassuch as incitement of illegal activity or true threatswhere speech is not constitutionally protected and the government can forbid dissemination, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The alleged shooters statements of intent arent incitement under current law. Incitement requires that he intend to incite imminent unlawful action in others and be likely to so incite (Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)). Some of his posted statements might satisfy the New York statute prohibiting terroristic threats (N.Y. Pen. Code 490.20). But even if it did, its not clear it meets the constitutional test for a true threat.

The alleged shooters statements of intent arent incitement under current law. The Supreme Court has held incitement requires that the speaker intend to incite imminent unlawful action in others and be likely to so incite. Some of his posted statements might satisfy the NY statute prohibiting terroristic threats, N.Y. Penal Code 490.20. But even if it did, its not clear it meets the constitutional test for a true threat or falls within any other category of unprotected speech.

The government cannot punish hateful messages or platforms that are used to disseminate them. It would violate the First Amendment to hold the social media companies liable because the Buffalo shooter used them to express a message.

Moreover, a federal statute, 47 U.S.C. 230, is explicit that social media companies cannot be held liable, with narrow exceptions, for what is posted on their platforms. The law expressly preempts state laws that impose liability for such posts.

In fact, in part because this federal statute immunizes platforms for content moderation decisions they make, social media companies already do an enormous amount of content moderation. For example, from October to December 2021, Facebook, now known as Meta Platforms, says it took action against terrorism content 7.7 million times, bullying and harassment 8.2 million times, and child sexual exploitation material 19.8 million times.

And, when the alleged shooter attempted to livestream an act of mass murder, Twitch was able to remove the video and suspend his account in less than two minutes. Unfortunately, as with the shootings in Christchurch, New Zealand, recordings remain online.

Moderation of this speech is necessary for the internet to be usable for most people, and platforms know it. The enormous amount of content moderation performed by platforms such as Facebook demonstrate that social pressure and market factors can encourage conscientious content moderation without unconstitutional government pressure.

But it also must be remembered that content moderation occurs at so enormous a scale that it is impossible for platforms to get it right 100% of the time. It is completely acceptable to ask social media platforms to do better.

Attorney General James, of course, is free to conduct an inquiry into the role social media played in the Buffalo shooting. But, if the investigation concludes that too much or too little content moderation occurred, New York cannot force platforms to change their moderation practices because those practices are protected by the First Amendment and immunized by Section 230.

The best we can hope for is that social media companies will improve their content moderation practices by more accurately and rapidly excluding or limiting access to objectionable speech that users do not want to see and platforms do not want to host.

The internet and social media are tremendously powerful tools for freedom of speech. It is not hyperbole to say that they are the most important development for expression since the invention of the printing press.

They have enormously enhanced the ability for people to reach a mass audience and to access information. But such tools, and speech itself, can be used for good or for ill.

James can investigate, but the law is clear: The social media companies cannot be punished for being the sites where racist speech was expressed by a deeply disturbed and violent individual.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law and the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law. Prior to that he was the founding dean and distinguished professor of law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.

Alex Chemerinsky is a federal law clerk in the District of Arizona.

Read the original:
Mass Shootings and Hate SpeechWhat Can the Government Do? - Bloomberg Law

For several years after the 1998 Columbine high school massacre, and again after the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre, I wrote so often about the causes and consequences of American gun slavery that I felt a bit like the 19th-century abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, railing against an evil that seemed indomitable.

In our own time, the real root causes of our gun mayhem seem so hard for Americans to understand or even to rebut that my efforts to highlight them especially in theWashington Monthly in 2016 and in theAtlantic, with law professor Daniel Greenwood, as well as on the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC hardly altered public perceptions.

So I left off for a while, recognizing that most of us perceive only what we're incentivized most strongly to perceive, and ignore what we're pressured and trained to ignore.

But those incentives and pressures are shifting now. Let me try again to help the perceptions and responses get ahead of what's really driving gun violence.

RELATED:Gun violence is the health care crisis we're ignoring

The most powerful immediate drivers are fairly obvious: First, the aggressive marketing and easy availability of guns, some of which shouldn't even be in any civilian hands. Second, the racial and ethnic or religious hatred that drove Dylann Roof in a Black Charleston church in 2015, Robert Bowers in a Pittsburgh synagogue in 2018 and Peyton Gendron in a Buffalo supermarket this month, among others. Third, the mentally deranged but seemingly "raceless" rage that drove Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook elementary school in 2012, Stephen Paddock at a Las Vegas concert in 2017, Nikolas Cruz in Parkland in 2018 and Salvador Ramos in a Texas elementary school this month. Those are the virulent symptoms and accelerants, but not the root cause that grips millions of us so tightly and intimately that we're too numb to it to be alarmed or even to name it, let alone change it.

I'm not thinking about the evil in our divided human hearts that runs back to the Garden of Eden and to Cain's murder of Abel. I'm not even thinking mainly about American jurisprudence that has reinforced the Second Amendment and its enthusiasts. I'm thinking about the jurisprudence that, even more directly if more subtly, has expanded First Amendment protections of the commercial speech that indoctrinates us, 24/7, to embrace narrow, self-interested strategies of "self-improvement" and protection.

That kind of commercial speech, rendered ever more relentless, more intrusive and more intimate, strikes me as the main reason why we're losing our capacity and inclination to bind our sense of selfhood to our contributions to the good of the whole to "enlightened self-interest," as Alexis de Tocqueville and others called it.

Commercial speech is degrading our public and private lives, not malevolently or conspiratorially but for the most part mindlessly. It's groping us, goosing us, titillating us, tracking us, indebting us and, sometimes, as in commercials for drugs and home-protection systems, intimidating us, bypassing our brains and hearts on its way to our lower viscera and our wallets. Even ads that are "entertaining" incentivize defensive selfishness and greed.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Some conservative Roman Catholic thinking calls for a "common good constitutionalism" aimed at reconfiguring and curbing self-interest by redirecting the energies unleashed by today's markets ber allesneoliberalism. But a theocratic, semi-authoritarian solution won't work in our society, which in its best civic-republican mode is "ethical and pragmatic, disciplined and free," as a mentor of mine, the late literary historian Daniel Aaron, put it.

To renew that civic-republican ethos, we need first to face a hard truth that, in my experience, many Americans consider too close for comfort: Commercial speech, combined with social media, has deranged the public sphere by fragmenting, privatizing and alienating millions of us, and I don't mean only the shooters.

The toxic effects of commercial speech and social media have deranged the public sphere by fragmenting, privatizing and alienating us by the millions. I don't just mean the shooters.

Those who become shooters have indeed been mentally disturbed or especially susceptible to displacing their early personal hurts and resentments, often consequences of social fragmentation and family disintegration. But many others among us "merely" embrace conspiracy theories and believe whatever Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson tell them. Still others and here's where it gets too close for comfort for many of us depend on retirement accounts or other forms of investment in the publicly-traded corporations and private-equity ventures that sustain the deluge of commercial speech that's miseducating and disorienting the most impressionable, most vulnerable and most badly stressed among us.

That deluge peddles false escapes into impulse buying and degrading entertainment, and for almost the last three decades social media platforms have amplified and catalyzed the viral spread of the violent displacement of rage and envy by the most deeply wounded among us.

Retirees, gung-ho investors and financial managers are all implicated in the investments that bypassing other people's brains and hearts in ways that weaken their inclination and ability to sustain public trust. The hard truth that few of us want to face, including those of us who produce "news" as well as consume it, is that the commercial "speech" that our employment and our supposed standards depend on must somehow be altered and curbed.

A rare acknowledgment of the problem in the form of a boast came in CBS president Les Moonves' famous declaration, at a Morgan Stanley conference in 2016, that Donald Trump's presidential campaign "may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS."

One necessary step will be reversing the Supreme Court's notorious Citizens United ruling, which extended First Amendment protections to corporate "speech," both in the form of direct campaign contributions and untraceable, unlimited "dark money" spending.

That kind of jurisprudence hands the megaphone, along with almost incalculable political power, to incorporeal entities, and leaves ordinary citizens who struggle to advance the public interest feeling powerless and straining to be heard. It doesn't strengthen speech but hollows it out, incentivizing selfishness and leaving us with empty platitudes. Pumping corporate speech into politics leaves a vacuum in public beliefs and virtues that clueless armed citizens have too often tried to fill by besieging state capitols and storming the U.S. Capitol.

These are too often the same people who refuse to wear masks because masks protect others more than themselves. Many of them buy guns not in the theoretical interest of making society safer, but to protect themselves against a society that they're making less safe day by day.

Still others work for investment banks and hedge funds, or pour their money into them, not to make business more efficient and effective but in order to accumulate enough wealth to insulate themselves from the decay their own activities accelerate, whatever clouds of pious public rhetoric they may offer. Others offer gifts, including large philanthropic donations, more intended to make themselves look good than to help the wounded and bereft around the world whom their activities have damaged.

"How many conservative economists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None. The Invisible Hand will take care of it." That's an old joke about the false presumption that through some magical process a greater good will flow from everyone pursuing their own individual "good," and the less interference there is from "bleeding heart," "busybody" big-government liberals, the better.

Mass shootings may not be inherent in capitalism, but they stem from our individual drive to maximize narrow self-interest without considering the unintended consequences.

The accelerating danger of mass shootings and other forms of gun mayhem may not be inherent in capitalism as such, but in our long-internalized, individualistic drive to maximize personal profit and narrow self-interest, rather than reconciling what we do to "make a living" with its unintended consequences. The real danger lies in denying that a democratic polity must ultimately have sovereignty over an economy, and in pretending that wealth is anything more than a necessary support for a commonwealth.

"Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a'prey, when wealth accumulates and men decay," wrote Oliver Goldsmith in 1777, as the American republic was being born. Now that the republic is in danger of dying, let's take that warning to heart and find ways to pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to defending its truth.

That kind of idealism may have been outflanked in our current era by developments that can only be described as fascist. We may have to move to tighter organizing and take to the streets. We may have to follow the example of unarmed peoples who've brought down vast, national security states in Eastern Europe, in South Africa, in British India by following the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., with disciplined purpose and our eyes on the prize, even at risk of death.

Read more on America's epidemic of mass shootings:

Read the original:
Gun violence, neoliberalism and Citizens United: We can't change things without facing the truth - Salon