Some excerpts from article; “That might have been why, when President Biden and Israeli officialssaid that Oct. 7 was Israel’s Sept. 11, intending the comparison as a rallying cry for self-defense, their words seemed to many instead a cruel provocation of trauma. Were they kidding? The response to Sept. 11 was catastrophic for the Arab and Muslim world and, eventually, terrible for the United States. A similar response to Oct. 7 would be terrible for the Israeli people, and a total reinvention of hell for the Palestinians. We know this because we are Americans. In the Israelis, we saw our own leaders: shocked victims for a day, destroyers of worlds every day thereafter.
But by then, the bombing of Gaza had already begun.
This year, the United States found itself engaged in two major global conflicts, in Ukraine and Israel. Both Mr. Biden and the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, have linked the two wars together in an effort to shore up a common foreign policy against those who seek to “annihilate a neighboring democracy.” Americans’ attitudes toward both conflicts vary, however, particularly among a youth population that is furious about Gaza and ambivalent about Ukraine. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll found that a stunning 72 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 disapprove of Mr. Biden’s handling of the Gaza crisis.
The young always rebel against the old. But this generation might be unique for one reason. Their whole experience of American foreign policy — as well as American values, reflexes and rhetoric — has been defined by one overarching foreign policy era: the war on terror.
In the 20th century, the Cold War era inculcated a Cold War worldview. Many Americans came to see foreign conflicts through the prism of good and evil. They viewed their country’s foreign affairs “mistakes” as a divergence from, as the British writer Anatol Lieven called it, a “state of noble innocence.” The older generation spent most of their lives awash in such myths. Those of us in the middle absorbed them for half of our lives, until Sept. 11, 2001, ushered us into a whole new state of being.”
“After the withdrawal from Afghanistan, it felt as if Americans might reconsider their country’s role in foreign affairs. But six months later, Russia invaded Ukraine. “Pressure is growing again, especially given the failures in Afghanistan,” as the legal scholar Aziz Rana had written just a few months earlier, “to find new ways to display American power, to prove that, as Biden has said, ‘America is back.’” Ukraine was a different enough war to resist comparisons to the war on terror. It was a clean break: a war that once again pitted democrats against authoritarians and restored Americans to the side of the good against evil.”
“But young people, according to polls,felt uncertain about American involvement in Ukraine. The binary of democracy versus authoritarianism didn’t ring true for a generation that had begun questioning the meaning of democracy at home and abroad. They lived with a sense of doom around climate change and many had embraced Black Lives Matter protests, both of which taught them about American hypocrisy and the preciousness of human life. “We have trouble with the idea that our nation has a right to lecture any other,” the young editors of the magazine The Drift wrote in June 2022. (I have taught international affairs to 20-year-olds for the last three years, so I have had exposure to these sentiments.) Many Americans had been left with a void in their emotional landscape, an unanswered question about the American project: If the war on terror was something imagined by a democracy, then what was a democracy? What is a democracy that kills so many people?
As of this writing, the Israeli military has killed around 20,000 Palestinians and wounded 52,000, according to Gazan health authorities.That death toll includes an estimated 7,000 children. It has killed more than 60 journalists, over 130 U.N. aid workers, poets and cooks and teachers and I.T. specialists and mothers. The bombing is worse — faster, heavier, more indiscriminate — than what the Americans did in Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan. But it is also reminiscent of all the wars there.”
“In October, the Americans and Israelis said that Oct. 7 was Israel’s Sept. 11. Americans know that on Sept. 11, Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people, and in the 20 years that followed, the U.S. war on terror killed almost one million. Many Americans, marooned in the condition of future thinking, fear what could come next in the Middle East. They fear that one day Israel, aided by the United States, will destroy Gaza entirely. They fear that the devastation will set off another horrifying cascade of crises, an unfathomable loss of life. And they know that someday Americans will question what madness overcame them in 2023, why they once again allowed the killing of so many people, and what happened to them long ago that made them this way.”
My comments on above article in NYT;
Your comment has been approved! Thank you for sharing your thoughts with The New York Times community. FS | NY We expected every American President to support Israel but they always also gave voice to Palestinian rights. The most disturbing aspect of Gaza war was that we impulsively jumped into this war as our war and President Biden’s Administration made clear they have no red line for Israel (John Kirby) and this is no time for being neutral (Lloyd Austin). President Biden himself furiously advocated on behalf of Israel, including some fabrications. This further inflamed the situation rather than calm it and now we have over 20,000 innocent Gazan dead with our supplied “Dumb Bombs” and Hamas still not much degraded.
We should be proud of our younger generation who can see this injustice and plight of violently oppressed Palestinians and is raising their voices against injustice. That is what we taught and expected from them to speak up if you see any injustice.”
“If the presidential election were held today, Donald Trump could very well win it. Polling from several organizations shows him gaining ground on Joe Biden, winning five of six swing states and drawing the support of about 20 percent of Black and roughly 40 percent of Hispanic voters in those states.”
“But both sides consistently misread Mr. Trump’s success. He isn’t edging ahead of Mr. Biden in swing states because Americans are eager to submit to authoritarianism, and he isn’t attracting the backing of significant numbers of Black and Hispanic voters because they support white supremacy. His success is not a sign that America is prepared to embrace the ideas of the extreme right. Mr. Trump enjoys enduring support because he is perceived by many voters — often with good reason — as a pragmatic if unpredictable kind of moderate.”
I suspect that Ms. Winfrey’s legacy won’t be just the big things she built — the school she created, the girls she educated and the fortune she amassed. It won’t be just the movies she produced or the novelists she promoted or the politicians whose fortunes she boosted. It won’t be just her talk show or her magazine or her philanthropy, the firsts she’s achieved or the good she’s done.
It will also be the idea that every woman’s body is a battleground, that our appetites are to be mistrusted and subdued, that fat is an enemy to be combated with every weapon available, that the war is never over and that thinness is a woman’s true life’s work, just as it’s been so much of hers.
The Freedom of Speech is enshrined in First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The Fourteenth Amendment further adds “ nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.
Freedom of speech includes the right:
Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
Defamation speech
Hate and violent Speech
There is landmark case of Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969, which lay the foundation of rules governing hate or violent speech. Wikipedia description of the case is worth reading.
Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of “revengeance” against “Niggers“, “Jews“, and those who supported them and also claimed that “our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race“, and announced plans for a march on Congress to take place on the Fourth of July.[10] Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.[11]
Brandenburg was charged with advocating violence under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in the rally and for the speech he made. In relevant part, the statute – enacted in 1919 during the First Red Scare – proscribed “advocat[ing] … the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” and “voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism”.
David French writes in NYT about recent controversy in universities over hate speech. “For example, surprising though it may be, the First Amendment does largely protect calls for violence. In case after case, the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of an actual, immediate threat — such as an incitement to violence — the government cannot punish a person who advocates violence. And no, there is not even a genocide exception to this rule.
But that changes for publicly funded universities when speech veers into targeted harassment that is “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” The First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh has helpfully articulated the difference between prohibited harassment and protected speech as often the difference between “one-to-one speech” and “one-to-many speech.” The legal commentator David Lat explained further, writing, “If I repeatedly send antisemitic emails and texts to a single Jewish student, that is far more likely to constitute harassment than if I set up an antisemitic website available to the entire world.”
As a result, what we’ve seen on campus is a mixture of protected antisemitic (as well as anti-Islamic) speech and prohibited harassment. Chanting “Globalize the intifada” or “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at a public protest is protected speech. Tearing down another person’s posters is not. (My rights to free speech do not include a right to block another person’s speech.) Trapping Jewish students in a library while protesters pound on library doors is not protected speech, either.”
David French writes great concluding paragraph; “Confronting hatred with courageous speech is far better than confronting hatred with censorship. It is obviously important to protect students from harassment. I’m glad to see that the Department of Education is opening numerousTitle VI investigations (including an investigation of Harvard) in response to reports of harassment on campus. But do not protect students from speech. Let them grow up and engage with even the most vile of ideas. The answer to campus hypocrisy isn’t more censorship. It’s true liberty. Without that liberty, the hypocrisy will reign for decades more.”
Obscene Speech
Obscene speech is not protected under First Amendment. Initially courts had hard time defining “Obscene”. Even one judge remarked, I know it is obscene when I see it. Ultimately in Miller v California 1973, Chief Justice Warren Burger outlined what he called “guidelines” for jurors in obscenity cases. These guidelines are the three prongs of the Miller test. They are:
(1) whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; The Court defined material appealing to prurient interest as “material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts,” or “a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion.”
(2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(3) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Defamation Speech
The courts mostly want to err on the side of allowing more freedom of speech than restricting it. It is especially important in cases of public officials who are accountable to public and need scrutiny of their actions by the public and press without fear of defamation law suits which may have chilling effects on free speech. Error is inevitable in any debate and courts do not hold it against the defendant as long as there was no intentional aspect in the error.
When it comes to prosecuting defamation, the law treats regular citizens and public figures or celebrities on different standards. Because criminals, celebrities, and other categories of people that are common topics for discussion and media coverage have in some sense agreed to be talked about, when they sue for defamation, they have a higher burden of proof.
Public Figures & Celebrities; For defamation to be successful the public figures have to prove that not only the published report was false but also the malice. Constitutional actual malice means that the defamation was published with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. Reckless disregard is not simply negligent behavior, but publication with serious doubts as to the truth of what is uttered. They also have to prove the damage it caused, such as out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering.
Private Citizens; Private citizens have to prove only that the information published or statements made against them are false and they do not have to prove malice. They have to prove the damage it caused and the compensation will be limited for actual provable injuries, such as out-of-pocket loss, impairment of reputation and standing, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering. If Private Citizen also prove actual malice, then they will be entitled as well to collect punitive damages.
Recently two Georgia election workers won about $150 million verdict against Rudy Giuliani in defamation law suit. They, as private citizens, proved that Rudy not only made false statements against them, but did so with malice. They won compensation as well as punitive damages. The jury awarded Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss a combined $75 million in punitive damages. It also ordered Mr. Giuliani to pay compensatory damages of $16.2 million to Ms. Freeman and $16.9 million to Ms. Moss, as well as $20 million to each of them for emotional suffering.
There are three level of evidence used in courts. The ” defamation” cases require clear and convincing evidence. The three level of evidence are;
Preponderance of Evidence; To prove an element by a preponderance of the evidence simply means to prove that something is more likely than not. In other words, in light of the evidence and the law, do you believe that each element of his/her [claim/counterclaim] is more likely true than not? It has greater than 50% chance of being true. This is mostly used in civil cases.
Clear and convincing evidence; According to the Supreme Court in Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984), “clear and convincing” means that the evidence is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. In other words, the fact-finder must be convinced that the contention is highly probable. In percentage the evidence is about 85% true.
Beyond Reasonable doubt; This level of evidence is used in criminal cases. This means that the prosecution must convince the jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented at trial. In other words, the jury must be virtually certain of the defendant’s guilt in order to render a guilty verdict. In percentage the uncertainty is about 98%. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean from any doubt, but the doubt one may have is miniscule, less than 2%.
Sources; I have cut and pasted some parts of the article.
