Prosecuting hate speech

A New York Times article reports that online hate speech in Germany is being prosecuted, with fines and sometimes jail time being part of the penalties. This touches on what I see as one of the most complex but important issues in modern politics. 

Americans are untrained and defenseless

American society is clearly not able to defend itself. We are overwhelmed by a vast online onslaught of divisive lies, slanders, flawed motivated reasoning, crackpot conspiracies, irrational emotional manipulation, slanders and all the other filth and moral rot that is protected free speech in the US. Social media companies claim to police it, but it is clear by now that such a claim is mostly window dressing (~95% ?). That is just a fig leaf that allows social media companies to claim that hate and lies are being policed. Profit prevents the companies from getting serious about hate speech.

On top of that, hate speech cannot be policed in public places and platforms. Only private sources and police and censor it. 

In my firm opinion, decades of dark free speech in America has been and is the single most potent and effective tool that radical right conservatives used to tear American society apart and subvert both politics and democracy. Decades of dark free speech has pushed conservative politics into normalization and acceptance of, a shocking degree of mendacity, authoritarianism, corruption and radical Christian theocracy that comes straight out of the Dark Ages. That is now accepted politics by tens of millions of conservative American adults.

The NYT writes:

At that exact moment in March, a similar scene was playing out at about 100 other homes across Germany, part of a coordinated nationwide crackdown that continues to this day. After sharing images circulating on Facebook that carried a fake statement, the perpetrators had devices confiscated and some were fined.

“We are making it clear that anyone who posts hate messages must expect the police to be at the front door afterward,” Holger Münch, the head of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said after the March raids.

Hate speech, extremism, misogyny and misinformation are well-known byproducts of the internet. But the people behind the most toxic online behavior typically avoid any personal major real-world consequences. Most Western democracies like the United States have avoided policing the internet because of free speech rights, leaving a sea of slurs, targeted harassment and tweets telling public figures they’d be better off dead. At most, Facebook, YouTube or Twitter remove a post or suspend their account.

But over the past several years, Germany has forged another path, criminally prosecuting people for online hate speech.

German authorities have brought charges for insults, threats and harassment. The police have raided homes, confiscated electronics and brought people in for questioning. Judges have enforced fines worth thousands of dollars each and, in some cases, sent offenders to jail. The threat of prosecution, they believe, will not eradicate hate online, but push some of the worst behavior back into the shadows.

In doing so, they have flipped inside out what, to American ears, it means to protect free speech. The authorities in Germany argue that they are encouraging and defending free speech by providing a space where people can share opinions without fear of being attacked or abused.

“There has to be a line you cannot cross,” said Svenja Meininghaus, a state prosecutor who attended the raid of the father’s house. “There has to be consequences.”

But even in Germany, a country where the stain of Nazism drives a belief that free speech is not absolute, the crackdown is generating fierce debate:

How far is too far?

Is it going too far to censor actual, provable lies, which are usually a non-trivial component of crackpot conspiracy theories? What about slanders? Essentially all of the liars, conspiracy crackpots and slanderers claim to speak truth. They vehemently deny that they are liars, crackpots and/or slanderers. By doing that they implicitly but undeniably point to truth, honesty and non-slander as something good.[1]  

What about flawed motivated reasoning? That is more complicated and subtle, but nonetheless a critically important consideration. The human mind is susceptible to it and we are usually completely unaware that it is in operation. Wikipedia:

Motivated reasoning is the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence. It is the “tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe.” People can therefore draw self-serving conclusions not just because they want to but because the conclusions seemed more plausible given their beliefs and expectancies.

When I listen to most Republican politicians and partisans speak, motivated reasoning is usually a non-trivial or dominant part of what is being asserted. Usually, the reasoning is based on one or more provable lies that are folded into the argument being asserted. That is one objective basis to censor motivated reasoning. It seems that one or more lies or falsehoods cut through most dark free speech (~80% ?). 

What about motivated reasoning that is not based heavily on lies or falsehoods? Some arguments based on logic flaws can be like that. For example, relying on a circular or strawman argument or by positing a false dilemma. Many people, especially most partisans and ideologues, do that fairly regularly. They firmly believe their argument and reject allegations of any error in their reasoning. 

Questions of censorship are complicated but important. For years it seemed best to leave dark free speech free and untouched. Then it became clear that it is divisive, deadly and corrosive to society, respect for truth, democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties. 

The stakes of leaving dark free speech untouched are very high. The stakes of touching it might be just as high. That is because, if autocrats, theocrats and/or kleptocrats (ATKs) rise to power, they could and probably would impose limits on free speech. Their limits would related to squelching criticism and inconvenient truth. That’s what the ATKs in places like China, Russia and North Korea have done. 

Yes, ATKs would try to subvert laws that censor some or most dark free speech that are intended to defend truth and democracy. That is an ever-present risk of censorship. 

Q: What runs the higher risk to truth and democracy, trying to censor some or most dark free speech or leaving it all alone and letting the ATK chips fall where they will?

Footnote:

1. That strikes me as being akin to Putin holding an election “referendum” in occupied Ukraine and then telling the World the people there, who were forced at gunpoint to vote as they were told, want to be part of Russia. Even a murdering thug like Putin must see at least propaganda value in elections, even if they are an obvious farce.

A tale of profit, pollution and who pays to clean up the messes

“Social responsibility is a fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free society, and have said that in such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” ― Milton Friedman, The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays, 1935 (Businesses do not stay within the rules of the game, and they probably never did. Deception and fraud have always been there. They were and still are important, not trivial aspects of normal business operations. And, most or nearly all businesses hate open and free competition.)

In America there are hundreds of thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells. Many of them continue to emit into the air and/or ground the potent greenhouse gas methane and/or toxic compounds such as xylene. In coming years, millions of wells will be abandoned as the economy transitions from carbon energy to other energy sources. This 13 minute video shows that private funds and taxpayers pay ~$30,000 to $1,000,000 each to plug and cap wells that drillers and well owners abandoned. 

Most owners of abandoned either cannot afford to cap their wells or they cannot be found and the land sold to other people, many of who are not aware that they have one or more abandoned wells on their property. The problem is left to the states, which choose to not fund well capping.

An obvious solution to this problem, assuming one sees it as a problem worth solving, is to (i) require plugging and capping before a well is abandoned, and (ii) tax what each well produces so that there is money to properly plug and cap old and newly abandoned wells. 

Obviously that solution is politically impossible. Oil and gas companies will scream bloody murder and unleash their hordes of lobbyists and campaign contributions to kill any such measure. On top of that massive barrier, the Republican Party will scream bloody murder, accusing the effort as more evil socialist tyranny, pedophilia, cannibalism, satanism and whatever else they come up with in their raging ideological fever dreams and crackpot conspiracy theories.

This is just another example of how callous and irresponsible people and companies that profit from pollution are. They could not care less about environmental or human damage. That is the heart and soul of energy sector capitalism. Laws could have and should have been passed decades ago making it mandatory to plug and cap wells. 

But as usual for most American capitalism, there is no such thing as social conscience. Social conscience is subversive to profit. Despite contrary capitalist public relations* rhetoric, social conscience is intolerable. It is blasphemy to core capitalist dogma of profit above all else. 

* Public relations from big corporations is mostly just propaganda, largely consisting of lies, deceit, opacity, deflection, flawed motivated reasoning, etc. 

Acknowledgement: Thanks to Peach Freeze for bringing this video to my attention.

A list of the 100 biggest greenhouse gas polluters

The Political Economy Research Institute at U. Mass. Amherst compiles polluter lists and updates them periodically. The Greenhouse 100 polluters index 2021 report is based on 2019 data. Clicking on a polluter opens a list of facilities and the town and state they are located in. PERI compiles other lists such as the top 100 air polluters and water polluters. Some of the Greenhouse gas polluter list is shown below:

Some of the air polluter list is shown below.

Humans are why it is hard to prosecute criminals

One thing that  criminal law usually requires is intent to commit the crime shown by evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That is a very high standard. It is a major reason why prosecutors often choose not to prosecute a case. A Washington Post article about radical right representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) highlights this issue. The WaPo writes:

Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation — telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter.

Senior department officials have not made a final decision on whether to charge Gaetz, but it is rare for such advice to be rejected, these people told The Washington Post, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. They added that it is always possible additional evidence emerges that could alter prosecutors’ understanding of the case.

A criminal defense lawyer commented that when a witness changes their story, their credibility is damaged or completely blown. That is usually enough for defense lawyers to create a “reasonable doubt” in the mind(s) at least one of twelve jurors. That is all it takes for a criminal to get away with crime.

In this case, credibility issues were probably not because the witness is a sex worker. Instead, she probably either (1) gave inconsistent interviews during the investigation, and/or (2) gave one version, was shown some evidence, and with a refreshed recollection gave another. Either way, that’s a defense attorney’s bread and butter. That’s the case right there. Defense lawyers love going to trial where no matter what the alleged victim says, there is at least one prior inconsistent statement. And, the fact that her second story would be consistent with the documentary evidence makes it worse, not better.

This is a common example of how ordinary and easy it is to erect plausible deniability in criminal cases. Matt Gaetz is probably not going to be prosecuted for crimes he probably committed.[1]

If you’re interested -- a personal anecdote about witnesses

About 35 years ago, I witnessed a bad car accident on my drive home from San Francisco one night. Two cars were racing, going at least about 100 mph, my guess in court was about 110 mph. After the two cars blew past me going 72 mph on cruise control, one lost control. That car swerved across 4 lanes from the fast lane into the slow lane and broadsided a car in the slow lane. Both vehicles were totaled. I was one of the cars that stopped to see if anyone was hurt. The guy in the slow lane was hurt, bleeding and panicking because he could not open his door, which was smashed in. A couple of us forced the door open and that calmed the guy down. No one in the wrecked race car was hurt. I witnessed the whole thing with amazement.

I waited for police and medics to arrive and take care of the hurt person. Then the cops asked for witnesses. People were eager to tell their story, but I sort of hung back and just listened. The accounts that each of three witnesses gave were not only quite different from each other, they were just wrong based on what I saw. I was amazed again.[2] If that personal experience is probative evidence, many or most human witnesses are amazingly unreliable. 

Footnotes: 
1. Despite being a high burden of proof that prosecutors must show to get a criminal conviction, the system does sometimes convict innocent people. From what I can tell, there is significant bias in wrongful criminal convictions. A 2018 research paper’s abstract summarizes the issue:

We examine the extent to which DNA exonerations can reveal whether wrongful conviction rates differ across races. We show that under a wide-range of assumptions regarding possible explicit or implicit racial biases in the DNA exoneration process (including no bias), our results suggest the wrongful conviction rate for rape is substantially and significantly higher among black convicts than white convicts. By contrast, we show that only if one believes that the DNA exoneration process very strongly favors innocent members of one race over the other could one conclude that there exist significant racial differences in wrongful conviction rates for murder.

2. For the rest of the story: I started to slink away, but one of the cops was watching me and he stopped me. I gave him my version of events. When the court case came up, I was the only witness called, so my version of the event was on display. The race car driver’s defense attorney was unhappy with my version, especially the amount of detail about the accident I was able to recall. For example, I knew my exact speed due to my cruise control. So, he impugned my credibility by asking if I was some sort of scientist, and when I said yes, he dropped that line of attack and tried another. 

He asked me for the details of what was on each side of the highway in the area of the accident, stuff like what kind of trees, what buildings were like, etc. I could not answer that very coherently even though I could picture it in my mind pretty well. And that is where he left it. I could not answer what was on the sides of a road I had been driving 4-5 times per week for several years. That undermined my credibility.