Is This Still A Free Country?

A brief review of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, brings up several interesting thoughts, realizations and questions. (Read the Bill of Rights in full here.) 

The first is about freedom of speech, religion, assembly and the press. It should mean that people are allowed to say and write what they want within broad limits. Others can raise reasonable objections and counter arguments, or at least accept apologies. But today we find that  speakers are banned from campuses or shouted down by those who believe words are the same as weapons. We have large, powerful social media corporations expected to censor comments and pictures posted by private citizens based on arbitrary standards. We have Ellen DeGeneres scorned for attending a football game in the company of George W. Bush. Say the wrong thing, even in the form of a question and risk personal attack, silencing, losing a job or boycotts of your product.

The Second is about the right to bear arms. That really means the right to carry them not even to own them. Today arms means guns and the nation is split. Clearly the right to carry has been infringed at various levels in various places.

Some states have passed a Red Flag Law, Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), with strong approval of the electorate. If a person is considered a danger to himself or others, authorities can show up and confiscate weapons for one week, no questions asked. A judge can extend this for up to six months where there is “good cause.” At that point the accused can finally respond at a hearing, but has no legal right to representation. In Maryland, for example, the initial complaint can come not only from law enforcement, physicians, and mental health workers, but also from family members, housemates or dating partners. The list in other states is more inclusive, and the gun owners have no recourse in cases of false accusations.

The Third is about housing soldiers without consent – no problem there.

The fourth prohibits unlawful search and seizure. This is about privacy; but with the social media-driven desire to be famous, Americans are becoming more casual about their own privacy and take for granted the idea of being constantly under surveillance. Compound that lax attitude with new technology: facial recognition software and proliferating security cameras; possible leaks through computer cameras and microphones; personal assistants listening in on conversation; ISPs and grocery stores tracking our on-line activity and purchases; and other examples – privacy is ebbing away. (For an interesting description of possible future threats, see the book, Eyes in the Sky.) 

The Fifth Amendment is well known for protection against self-incrimination and the right to due process, but the public tends to decide guilt or innocence based on news reports and political affiliation. “No comment” is often assumed to be an admission of guilt. 

Consider also the current practice of Civil Asset Forfeiture where authorities can confiscate personal property on the basis of accusation, not conviction. There are many horror stories of abuse where innocent people must fight the system to reclaim seized property.

The first part of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a speedy trial. Many of the convictions on the local news are for crimes committed in years past. The right to “be confronted with the witnesses against him” seems to fly in the face of the idea of being attacked from a distance as rumors spread on social media. Transgressors of cultural values don't even get a trial, no less a speedy one.

The Seventh, the right to a jury trial in certain civil cases seems OK, but the complexity of modern cases and the lack of economic understanding continues to result in unreasonably high awards or settlements driven by the threat of litigation in front of a "compassionate" jury. 

The Eighth prohibits excess bail, which has been a matter of some discussion lately. Excessive is not the same for everyone. Poor people who are not a flight risk can spend months behind bars waiting for a trial, a handy tool to coerce them into pleading guilty. Like Civil Asset Forfeiture, this practice is a boon to the authorities at the expense of the innocent.

Nine and Ten are instructive. The Tenth addresses the idea of “Undelegated Powers [being] Kept by the States and the People.” The word delegated implies that the states and people are in a superior position to the Federal Government. They hand down powers to them! That certainly isn’t the way it works today!

One problem with these rights is that they apply to the government not depriving people of them. That’s the excuse used when one citizen or group tries to shut up or railroad those they disagree with. That punitive attitude is true to the letter, but contrary to the spirit.

Another problem is that they are so easy to take for granted or ignore. These are not obsolete ideas; they must be respected. Freedom is always linked to responsibility.

Tradeoffs

Unfortunately the real world isn’t black and white or true and false.  There are shades of distinction.  Good evaluation always balances the risks and the benefits of any decision.  It is often too easy to overlook the risks or benefits when you are presented with arguments favoring one side or the other.  Some presentations come across so strongly and confidently that it’s difficult to even see that there are tradeoffs.  This is where critical thinking and appropriate questioning come in.

One blatant example was the controversy almost five years ago over pink slime, a derogatory term used to refer to and gather support against, a beef product that has been in our food supply for years with no ill effects.  Some TV chef decided it was yucky to reclaim meat waste, beef trimmings and other meat by-products, and add them to ground beef to lower the fat content.  The “crusade” began and, in response, grocery chains stopped ordering it.

There was nothing nutritionally wrong with it.  People’s jobs depended on the long-standing practice.  It reduced food waste.  As a result, we all had to pay more for ground beef just because someone dubbed it yucky and many others jumped on the bandwagon without a single thought or question – another social media triumph (?). 

It happened again to a lesser extent in Florida recently.  The residents of Miami Beach protested the aerial mosquito spraying.  The mayor insisted, “public health experts have assured him the amount of Naled [insecticide] used is harmless to humans and has proven effective” against mosquitos.  The public responded that they didn’t think the Zika threat was real.  They compared a safe, but probably scary spraying operation against an invisible, but real health threat and came down on the side of the mosquitos.

The same thing happens all the time on a variety of subjects.

Consider hydroelectric power – build a dam to capture the power of a river and provide low-cost electricity with no pollution.  Environmentalists block the project with lawsuits to protect a fish or mussel.  They don’t even have to prove danger to their fish; just raise the possibility and the developers or governments spend millions trying to prove there is no danger.  Meanwhile we all sit around in the dark.  But we are not in the dark because we still get electricity from the coal plant where other environmentalists are protesting against the CO₂ and particle emissions.  Still other protesters are busy condemning nuclear power, a safe, pollution-free option.  There is never any discussion about whether the benefits of a decision outweigh the risks (real or imagined).

Sitting around in the dark is not the big problem.  We can always light candles.  But you can’t light candles to keep the food fresh in the refrigerator, keep the house warm in the winter or keep the equipment running in the hospital emergency room.  When we have enough electricity, we take it so much for granted that we are not concerned that various groups with their different agendas keep trying to make it harder and harder to get.  At what point do we demand that they or the politicians look at trade offs and not just at one side of the story, usually the side with the most emotional impact.

Now look at all the other subjects where we are exposed only to the negative aspects:  climate change, income inequality, vaccination, the economy, air and water pollution, police interactions with the community, drug policy and the rest.  As citizens we fail to demand a balanced discussion, so get only the often-exaggerated negative warnings.  Many subjects quickly devolve into finger pointing and name-calling to silence opposition.  In some cases the cry is that all experts agree; in other cases the cry is that all the experts are wrong.  We waste time and energy with these non-critical, knee-jerk reactions.  We lose the benefits and go down the wrong road when we are only presented with and react to the risks.

Life is Like a Crossword Puzzle

Yes, life is like a crossword puzzle, and here’s why. 

This thought came to me when I was finishing up a Sunday NY Times puzzle left on my clipboard since March.  The clue was 5 letters long “Not be able to sleep.”  At first I put in SITUP.  That seemed to fit as I filled in the down letters.  The UP was definitely right, but I later found I needed an L at the beginning instead of an S.  So my answer now read LITUP.  That made as much sense as the NYT answers often do so I left it and worked on the rest.  When I came back no letter I tried at the beginning of the down answer that cut right through the middle of this LITUP made any sense.  Then it struck me.  It was LIEUP, and everything else fit! 

“So what?” you say.  How is that like life?  Well, I committed to one answer, and then got more evidence and had to change it.  Then I had to change that second answer to finally succeed.  the final answer made more sense, but the point is I wrote in the letters (in pencil), but I couldn’t get too attached to those answers, even though they were “my” answers and I thought they were right at the time.  Being flexible is a healthier way to live.

Too often people think they have the right answer, but instead of being flexible when faced with contradictory evidence or opinions, they try to ignore them or block them out.  When a controversial speaker comes to a campus, students and faculty may put pressure on the administration to withdraw the invitation.  We hear examples of this at each graduation cycle.  If that tactic fails, agitators may show up at the venue with the intention of shouting down the presentation.  This deprives everyone else of information they might want to hear - even if it’s wrong, it gives them something to think about.

It’s not just college students.  This story from The Guardian shows that scientists, those who are supposed to be objective and open to new evidence, act in the same way.  Around 1960 a scientist proposed that sugar was the culprit in the modern diet.  Those in the camp that proposed fat as the problem, did not want to hear it.  Using the power of personality and political influence, “prominent nutritionists combined with the food industry to destroy his reputation, and his career never recovered.”  They didn’t want to debate, they wanted to bury any opposition.  The government issued dietary guidelines based on those (fat) theories and no one ever looked back.

Last September, even though ideas about the harmfulness of sugar have become mainstream, the author of a book pointing out problems with the development of current dietary guidelines found an article she wrote for a medical journal attacked.  “The response of the nutrition establishment was ferocious: 173 scientists…signed a letter demanding [the journal] retract the piece.”  They offered no counter arguments and some who signed the letter had not even read the article.  They just didn’t want to hear it!  (This is a great article but rather long.)

This kind of refusal to consider alternatives is everywhere, even among those who call on everyone else to be open-minded.  (They often want us to be open-minded only about what they believe in, feeling no discomfort over the apparent inconsistency of silencing those who don’t agree with them.)  People only want to hear more evidence no matter how scanty to support their concept of the truth.  Recently House Speaker Paul Ryan referred to this phenomenon as “an echo chamber.”  Stephen Prothero, whom I judge from reading his most recent book to be in the opposite camp politically from Ryan, also criticizes it as “a hall of mirrors.”  I wrote about it in December under the  title “Confirmation Bias.”

Whether the subject is dietary guidelines, farming practices, climate change, health advice, economic policy, or a host of other topics, no one wants to hear the other side of the story.  They would rather shut down the opposition than reconsider the subject or be forced to defend a position they hold so dearly.  In their minds it’s settled!  Whatever happens, no one wants to take out their eraser, even if it means possibly being successful.

Freedom of Speech

Some will argue correctly that the First Amendment protection for freedom of speech applies only to the government regulations.  “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…”  Thus the government is banned from actions denying freedom of speech, but presumably everyone else has no such prohibition.

The typical exception is the example of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.  This is obviously not protected speech because it poses an immediate and unnecessary danger to the occupants as everyone rushes to the exits.  Whether other instances of such reckless speech are prohibited is decided by the courts.

There have been two recent incidents where those who have been silenced have protested that their rights were violated.  In one case the Trump campaign withdrew from an appearance in Chicago after protests broke out.  More recently a movie promoting the idea of a connection between vaccines and autism was removed from the Tribeca Film Festival.  Is there a problem?

According to the first amendment there is not.  The government did not do anything, except arrest some people in Chicago after the protests turned violent.

According to critical thinking no one’s rights were violated, but an unfortunate trend is appearing.  The stated goal of the University of Illinois-Chicago protesters was to “unite in solidarity AGAINST the Donald Trump campaign and its presence at Chicago and at UIC.”  They rejoiced when they shut it down.  It is unfortunate because it flies in the face of a stance adopted by a number of universities, ironically called the Chicago Principle.  It objects to the silencing of any legitimate organization or person on campus believing that “a culture of intense inquiry and informed argument generates lasting ideas, and that [students and faculty] have a responsibility both to challenge and to listen.”  If statements are legal and not threatening, harassing, defamatory, or a substantial invasion of privacy, they must be considered, discussed and debated regardless of whether it may be thought by some to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed.  (See here for further discussion and references.)  Hearing one side of an argument while blocking out the opposition is not consistent with education in college (or learning in life).

Does this reasoning apply to the film?  The administration of the Tribeca Film Festival has every right to jury movies and to select or reject any of them according to taste or any other criteria.  It’s their name on the festival, so to speak.  In this case, they may have been concerned about damage to their reputation and credibility by offering a documentary that was reviewed in the New York Times as “directed and co-written by Andrew Wakefield, the disgraced physician whose paper claiming a connection between autism and measles was retracted by The Lancet and whose license was revoked for ethics violations and his failure to disclose financial conflicts of interest.”  Others have found evidence that his data was fabricated.

The producers have the right to show it elsewhere without government interference.  But this one seems to be a little closer to the “Fire!” in a crowded theater scenario.  The film has drawn protests from the scientific community, not because it is offensive, but because it is wrong and dangerous.  People who accept this argument and who shun vaccination do not risk immediate injury, but they put themselves and/or their children at risk over the long term.  Recently this belief has led to a tripling of measles cases in the US, where the disease had been nearly wiped out.  (For more on the dangers of not vaccinating see here.)

Dangerous as it is, the only recourse the government has is the same as against all the other medical charlatans peddling their miracle cancer cures and their secrets your doctor won’t tell you and all the other conspiracy theories.  If they make illegal medical promises, they can be fined or shut down by the FTC.  Otherwise it’s once again up to us to be critical thinkers, to do the research and analysis.  We must be vigilant.

In general though, intelligent people welcome opposing points of view and either find counter-arguments and contrary evidence to support their opinion or they reconsider their own point of view.  Intelligent people don’t insult or silence the opposition just because they would rather not hear it (and want no one else to hear it).  They don’t consider such silencing as a victory because it really represents a loss, an admission that their arguments are inadequate.  They persuade rather than coerce others to agree by depriving them of exposure to other ideas.