Божий дар и яичница
Решил вынести из комментариев (с сокращениями и добавлением ссылок) тезисы о свободе слова.
1. Где находится граница свободы слова? Американское конституционное право признает, к примеру, что эта свобода не распространяется на мат, поэтому Первая поправка к Конституции не мешает правительству регулировать употребление матерных слов на радио и телевидении. Тем самым признается, что некоторые слова могут травмировать людей.
2. Если вы напишете "Бей Рабиновича!" это в определенных обстоятельствах может быть преступлением (подстрекательством к насилию). Если вы напишете "Бей жидов, спасай Америку!", то в Америке ничего криминального в этом не будет, поскольку не говорится, кого именно и когда следует бить. Это происходит не потому, что общество вдруг решило, что в пропаганде ненависти нет ничего вредного и травмирующего, а потому, что оно не доверяет государству решать, какая именно речь является такой пропагандой. Потому что, если дать государству такое право, оно может им злоупотреблять.
3. Что произойдет, если вы напишете подобное выражение на футболке и пойдете по улице? Полицейский не сможет вас за это арестовать, а судья не сможет посадить в тюрьму. Но вас могут не пустить в магазин или в ресторан. А за подобные выражения в социальных сетях могут забанить в Твиттере или Фейсбуке. Одну женщину не пустили на митинг Трампа в Оклахоме за то, что на ней была футболка с надписью "I can't breathe". Если бы ее не пускали в правительственное здание, это было бы нарушением свободы слова. Но избирательная кампания Трампа - частная организация и имеет право устанавливать свои собственные правила.
***UPDATE***
There is some confusion about the area Ms. Buck was arrested.
Ms. Buck was in an area that is considered a private event area and the event organizer, in this case the Trump Campaign, can have people removed at their discretion.
- Tulsa Police (@TulsaPolice) June 20, 2020
4. Общественные нормы, регулирующие речь, существуют для защиты наиболее уязвимых членов общества, включая расовые и этнические меньшинства. Это делается не только из сострадания к этим меньшинствам, но и для защиты самого общества и его демократического устройства. Потому что в тех странах, где демагоги приходят к власти через пропаганду ненависти к меньшинствам, они начинают не только преследовать эти меньшинства, но и отбирать права у всех других граждан, включая свободу слова. В Венгрии, к примеру, Орбан пришел к власти с помощью раздувания антисемитских теорий заговора про страшного Сороса. Оказавшись у власти, он стал систематически отключать возможность демократической смены власти, перекрывая кислород независимой прессе через давление на владельцев разных изданий. Венгрия постепенно скатилась из демократии в диктатуру.
Из доклада Совета Европы:
As a result of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s extensive reshaping of the media landscape since coming to power in 2010, the Hungarian government exerts sway over most of the country’s media. The few independent outlets that remain face a host of obstacles, including lack of advertising revenue, a restrictive regulatory environment, and public campaigns to discredit independent journalists.
https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-2018-democracy-in-danger-threats-and-attacks-media-freed/1680926453
Hungary is no longer a democracy, Poland is about to go down the same path, democracy in the Balkans is eroding because of Chinese and Russian influence, and the EU is doing nothing to stop it all, according to the NGO Freedom House's latest Nations in Transit report, out Wednesday.
In the study, which covers 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia, the authors describe "a stunning democratic breakdown," saying that there are "fewer democracies in the region today than at any point since the annual report was launched in 1995."
According to the report's methodology, Hungary is now a "hybrid regime," having lost its status as a "semi-consolidated democracy" due to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's continued assaults on the country's democratic institutions.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/hungary-no-longer-a-democracy-report-239807
5. В июне 2015, в начале его избирательной кампании, компания NBC уволила Трампа за пропаганду ненависти в адрес мексиканских иммигрантов. Это не помешало ему придти к власти, после чего он развернул нескончаемые атаки на прессу, включая давление на владельцев разных изданий с использованием административных ресурсов. Если он пока что был в этом деле менее успешен, чем Орбан, то не от недостатка стараний. Переизбрание поможет ему продвинуться дальше.
Из доклада Комитета защиты журналистов:
Trump also has often called for changes in American libel law, presumably so that he could successfully sue journalists and news organizations who publish unflattering stories and books about him. On March 30, 2017, he tweeted: “The failing [profile] nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?” On January 10, 2018, he said during a cabinet meeting that he wanted to take “a strong look” at changing libel laws “so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts.”
On September 2018, Trump tweeted repeatedly about Bob Woodward’s book about the Trump White House, “Fear,” saying in one tweet, “Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?”
Those politicians and Trump can do little to change American libel law, beyond the potential long-term impact of the president’s federal judicial appointments. Most libel cases are decided under state laws in accordance with the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The high court ruled unanimously that public figures and officials must prove “actual malice” - a statement made with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” - to win a libel claim. Congress is limited by what it could do under the First Amendment prohibition against any law that abridges “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Nevertheless, Trump’s re-election campaign filed separate libel suits during 10 days in early 2020 about opinion pieces published in 2019 by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN. The Trump campaign sued The Times on February 26 in Manhattan Supreme Court over a March 27, 2019 opinion column by former Times editor Max Frankel speculating about Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. It sued The Washington Post on March 3 in federal court in Washington over opinion pieces in June 2019 by columnists Greg Sargent, about the same subject, and Paul Waldman, speculating about the 2020 Trump campaign and Russia and North Korea. And the Trump campaign sued CNN on March 6 in federal court in Atlanta, CNN’s headquarters, over a June 13, 2019, opinion piece by contributor Larry Noble speculating about the 2020 Trump campaign and Russia.
Contending that the columns were “false and defamatory” and that The Times, The Post, and CNN were biased against the Trump campaign, the lawsuits demanded unspecified “millions of dollars” in damages from the three news organizations. They all said they would vigorously defend themselves.
The libel suits “have very little legal merit,” New York Times deputy legal counsel David McCraw told me, because they are challenging legally protected opinions about the administration. “I think they hoped to make headlines” rather than prevail in court, he said.
University of Georgia media law professor Jonathan Peters agreed that the lawsuits are “baseless” under legal precedents. But they are “wholly consistent with Trump’s efforts to undermine the press,” he added. “I’m worried that it may chill speech about newsworthy public issues.”
“Filing these lawsuits is a different kind of test of the system, entangling federal judges” in Trump’s battles with the press, Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told me. “I’m confident that they will be dismissed in a demonstration of judicial independence.”
Defending against such lawsuits may or may not prove to be a costly irritant for news organizations. But Trump also has threatened some of their owners’ financial independence.
In May 2018 he urged the U.S. Postal Service to double the rate it charges Amazon and other firms to ship packages. Amazon’s founder and chief executive, Jeff Bezos, owns The Washington Post through a private company separate from Amazon. Bezos has declined any role in its news coverage. Nevertheless, Trump has frequently referred derisively to “the Amazon Washington Post.” A task force created by Trump later found that package delivery for Amazon and other e-retailers was profitable for the Postal Service.
In July 2019, Trump told reporters at the White House that he was looking into a $10 billion, 10-year Defense Department cloud computing contract competition between Amazon and Microsoft. After the contract was awarded to Microsoft, Amazon filed a formal protest in November 2019 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Amazon contended that Trump’s “repeated public and behind-the-scenes attacks” against Amazon and his desire to “screw Amazon” prompted the Pentagon to choose the Microsoft proposal despite its “clear failures.” The complaint cited news reports that Trump had directed Defense Secretary Esper to intervene after it appeared that the contract would go to Amazon. A Pentagon spokeswoman responded that “there were no external influences on the source selection decision.” On February 13, 2020, Court of Claims Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith ordered all work on the cloud computing contract to stop until Amazon’s legal challenge is resolved.
In October 2017 tweets expressing his anger over NBC and CNN reporting about him, Trump called for challenges to the “licenses” of “NBC and the Networks.” In one of the tweets, he said, “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.”
The Federal Communications Commission, an independent federal agency, licenses individual broadcast stations, not networks. NBC Universal is owned by Comcast, which also owns broadcast stations in several large U.S. cities. In response to questions at the time, FCC chairman Ajit Pai said his agency does not have the authority to revoke the license of a broadcast station based on program content. “I believe in the First Amendment,” Pai said. “The FCC, under my leadership, will stand for the First Amendment.”
Trump has periodically put public pressure on the AT&T corporation to influence coverage of him by CNN, which it acquired in a merger with Time Warner in 2017. In a 2016 press release, the Trump campaign noted that AT&T “is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.” After Trump became president, the Justice Department challenged the merger, seeking to force any resulting new company to sell CNN’s parent, Turner Broadcasting, as a condition for approval of the deal. When Justice subsequently lost two federal court challenges, the merger took full effect early in 2019.
The President then called on Americans in June 3, 2019 tweets to boycott AT&T to force change at CNN. “I believe that if people stopped using or subscribing to [profile] att, they would be forced to make big changes at [profile] cnn, which is dying in the ratings anyway,” his tweet said. “It is so unfair with such bad, Fake News! Why wouldn’t they act. When the World watches [profile] cnn, it gets a false picture of USA. Sad!”
The Trump re-election campaign even threatened legal action against CNN in October 2019 for “misrepresenting” itself as a news organization because of comments some of its employees made about politics in conversations secretly recorded by an undercover conservative activist.
Trump also suggested a boycott of Fox News in August 2019, after he objected to some unfavorable reports and comments by the few Fox personalities who were not unwaveringly supportive of him. He began a flurry of tweets by saying, “The New [personal profile] foxnews is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore.”
The president had used tweets to call for the firings of news executives at NBC in November 2017 and at CNN in August 2018. In October 2019, Trump instructed his staff to cancel White House subscriptions to The New York Times and The Washington Post.
After Secretary of State Pompeo’s conflict with NPR in January 2020, conservative radio commentator Mark Levin called the public radio network a “Democratic Party propaganda operation” and asked on Twitter, “Why does NPR still exist?” Trump retweeted it, adding, “A very good question.” In his annual federal budget request, released in mid-February 2020, Trump proposed cutting to zero by 2023 the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes taxpayers’ money to NPR and the rest of public broadcasting.
https://cpj.org/reports/2020/04/trump-media-attacks-credibility-leaks/
6. Тем, кому дорога свобода слова, следует защищать свободу изданий вроде New York Times публиковать то, что они считают нужным, несмотря на административное давление со стороны людей, обладающих государственной властью и пытающихся удержать эту власть. Следует также защищать право подобных изданий отказываться предоставлять платформу расистским демагогам.
Populists like to claim that only they can protect their people from a dangerous world.
They're lying. https://t.co/f2KpgCZWsY
- Yascha Mounk (@Yascha_Mounk) June 22, 2020
1. Где находится граница свободы слова? Американское конституционное право признает, к примеру, что эта свобода не распространяется на мат, поэтому Первая поправка к Конституции не мешает правительству регулировать употребление матерных слов на радио и телевидении. Тем самым признается, что некоторые слова могут травмировать людей.
Click to view2. Если вы напишете "Бей Рабиновича!" это в определенных обстоятельствах может быть преступлением (подстрекательством к насилию). Если вы напишете "Бей жидов, спасай Америку!", то в Америке ничего криминального в этом не будет, поскольку не говорится, кого именно и когда следует бить. Это происходит не потому, что общество вдруг решило, что в пропаганде ненависти нет ничего вредного и травмирующего, а потому, что оно не доверяет государству решать, какая именно речь является такой пропагандой. Потому что, если дать государству такое право, оно может им злоупотреблять.
3. Что произойдет, если вы напишете подобное выражение на футболке и пойдете по улице? Полицейский не сможет вас за это арестовать, а судья не сможет посадить в тюрьму. Но вас могут не пустить в магазин или в ресторан. А за подобные выражения в социальных сетях могут забанить в Твиттере или Фейсбуке. Одну женщину не пустили на митинг Трампа в Оклахоме за то, что на ней была футболка с надписью "I can't breathe". Если бы ее не пускали в правительственное здание, это было бы нарушением свободы слова. Но избирательная кампания Трампа - частная организация и имеет право устанавливать свои собственные правила.
***UPDATE***
There is some confusion about the area Ms. Buck was arrested.
Ms. Buck was in an area that is considered a private event area and the event organizer, in this case the Trump Campaign, can have people removed at their discretion.
- Tulsa Police (@TulsaPolice) June 20, 2020
4. Общественные нормы, регулирующие речь, существуют для защиты наиболее уязвимых членов общества, включая расовые и этнические меньшинства. Это делается не только из сострадания к этим меньшинствам, но и для защиты самого общества и его демократического устройства. Потому что в тех странах, где демагоги приходят к власти через пропаганду ненависти к меньшинствам, они начинают не только преследовать эти меньшинства, но и отбирать права у всех других граждан, включая свободу слова. В Венгрии, к примеру, Орбан пришел к власти с помощью раздувания антисемитских теорий заговора про страшного Сороса. Оказавшись у власти, он стал систематически отключать возможность демократической смены власти, перекрывая кислород независимой прессе через давление на владельцев разных изданий. Венгрия постепенно скатилась из демократии в диктатуру.
Из доклада Совета Европы:
As a result of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s extensive reshaping of the media landscape since coming to power in 2010, the Hungarian government exerts sway over most of the country’s media. The few independent outlets that remain face a host of obstacles, including lack of advertising revenue, a restrictive regulatory environment, and public campaigns to discredit independent journalists.
https://rm.coe.int/annual-report-2018-democracy-in-danger-threats-and-attacks-media-freed/1680926453
Hungary is no longer a democracy, Poland is about to go down the same path, democracy in the Balkans is eroding because of Chinese and Russian influence, and the EU is doing nothing to stop it all, according to the NGO Freedom House's latest Nations in Transit report, out Wednesday.
In the study, which covers 29 countries from Central Europe to Central Asia, the authors describe "a stunning democratic breakdown," saying that there are "fewer democracies in the region today than at any point since the annual report was launched in 1995."
According to the report's methodology, Hungary is now a "hybrid regime," having lost its status as a "semi-consolidated democracy" due to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's continued assaults on the country's democratic institutions.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/hungary-no-longer-a-democracy-report-239807
5. В июне 2015, в начале его избирательной кампании, компания NBC уволила Трампа за пропаганду ненависти в адрес мексиканских иммигрантов. Это не помешало ему придти к власти, после чего он развернул нескончаемые атаки на прессу, включая давление на владельцев разных изданий с использованием административных ресурсов. Если он пока что был в этом деле менее успешен, чем Орбан, то не от недостатка стараний. Переизбрание поможет ему продвинуться дальше.
Из доклада Комитета защиты журналистов:
Trump also has often called for changes in American libel law, presumably so that he could successfully sue journalists and news organizations who publish unflattering stories and books about him. On March 30, 2017, he tweeted: “The failing [profile] nytimes has disgraced the media world. Gotten me wrong for two solid years. Change libel laws?” On January 10, 2018, he said during a cabinet meeting that he wanted to take “a strong look” at changing libel laws “so that when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts.”
On September 2018, Trump tweeted repeatedly about Bob Woodward’s book about the Trump White House, “Fear,” saying in one tweet, “Isn’t it a shame that someone can write an article or book, totally make up stories and form a picture of a person that is literally the opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost. Don’t know why Washington politicians don’t change libel laws?”
Those politicians and Trump can do little to change American libel law, beyond the potential long-term impact of the president’s federal judicial appointments. Most libel cases are decided under state laws in accordance with the landmark 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The high court ruled unanimously that public figures and officials must prove “actual malice” - a statement made with “knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” - to win a libel claim. Congress is limited by what it could do under the First Amendment prohibition against any law that abridges “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Nevertheless, Trump’s re-election campaign filed separate libel suits during 10 days in early 2020 about opinion pieces published in 2019 by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN. The Trump campaign sued The Times on February 26 in Manhattan Supreme Court over a March 27, 2019 opinion column by former Times editor Max Frankel speculating about Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia. It sued The Washington Post on March 3 in federal court in Washington over opinion pieces in June 2019 by columnists Greg Sargent, about the same subject, and Paul Waldman, speculating about the 2020 Trump campaign and Russia and North Korea. And the Trump campaign sued CNN on March 6 in federal court in Atlanta, CNN’s headquarters, over a June 13, 2019, opinion piece by contributor Larry Noble speculating about the 2020 Trump campaign and Russia.
Contending that the columns were “false and defamatory” and that The Times, The Post, and CNN were biased against the Trump campaign, the lawsuits demanded unspecified “millions of dollars” in damages from the three news organizations. They all said they would vigorously defend themselves.
The libel suits “have very little legal merit,” New York Times deputy legal counsel David McCraw told me, because they are challenging legally protected opinions about the administration. “I think they hoped to make headlines” rather than prevail in court, he said.
University of Georgia media law professor Jonathan Peters agreed that the lawsuits are “baseless” under legal precedents. But they are “wholly consistent with Trump’s efforts to undermine the press,” he added. “I’m worried that it may chill speech about newsworthy public issues.”
“Filing these lawsuits is a different kind of test of the system, entangling federal judges” in Trump’s battles with the press, Bruce Brown, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told me. “I’m confident that they will be dismissed in a demonstration of judicial independence.”
Defending against such lawsuits may or may not prove to be a costly irritant for news organizations. But Trump also has threatened some of their owners’ financial independence.
In May 2018 he urged the U.S. Postal Service to double the rate it charges Amazon and other firms to ship packages. Amazon’s founder and chief executive, Jeff Bezos, owns The Washington Post through a private company separate from Amazon. Bezos has declined any role in its news coverage. Nevertheless, Trump has frequently referred derisively to “the Amazon Washington Post.” A task force created by Trump later found that package delivery for Amazon and other e-retailers was profitable for the Postal Service.
In July 2019, Trump told reporters at the White House that he was looking into a $10 billion, 10-year Defense Department cloud computing contract competition between Amazon and Microsoft. After the contract was awarded to Microsoft, Amazon filed a formal protest in November 2019 in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Amazon contended that Trump’s “repeated public and behind-the-scenes attacks” against Amazon and his desire to “screw Amazon” prompted the Pentagon to choose the Microsoft proposal despite its “clear failures.” The complaint cited news reports that Trump had directed Defense Secretary Esper to intervene after it appeared that the contract would go to Amazon. A Pentagon spokeswoman responded that “there were no external influences on the source selection decision.” On February 13, 2020, Court of Claims Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith ordered all work on the cloud computing contract to stop until Amazon’s legal challenge is resolved.
In October 2017 tweets expressing his anger over NBC and CNN reporting about him, Trump called for challenges to the “licenses” of “NBC and the Networks.” In one of the tweets, he said, “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked.”
The Federal Communications Commission, an independent federal agency, licenses individual broadcast stations, not networks. NBC Universal is owned by Comcast, which also owns broadcast stations in several large U.S. cities. In response to questions at the time, FCC chairman Ajit Pai said his agency does not have the authority to revoke the license of a broadcast station based on program content. “I believe in the First Amendment,” Pai said. “The FCC, under my leadership, will stand for the First Amendment.”
Trump has periodically put public pressure on the AT&T corporation to influence coverage of him by CNN, which it acquired in a merger with Time Warner in 2017. In a 2016 press release, the Trump campaign noted that AT&T “is now trying to buy Time Warner and thus the wildly anti-Trump CNN. Donald Trump would never approve such a deal.” After Trump became president, the Justice Department challenged the merger, seeking to force any resulting new company to sell CNN’s parent, Turner Broadcasting, as a condition for approval of the deal. When Justice subsequently lost two federal court challenges, the merger took full effect early in 2019.
The President then called on Americans in June 3, 2019 tweets to boycott AT&T to force change at CNN. “I believe that if people stopped using or subscribing to [profile] att, they would be forced to make big changes at [profile] cnn, which is dying in the ratings anyway,” his tweet said. “It is so unfair with such bad, Fake News! Why wouldn’t they act. When the World watches [profile] cnn, it gets a false picture of USA. Sad!”
The Trump re-election campaign even threatened legal action against CNN in October 2019 for “misrepresenting” itself as a news organization because of comments some of its employees made about politics in conversations secretly recorded by an undercover conservative activist.
Trump also suggested a boycott of Fox News in August 2019, after he objected to some unfavorable reports and comments by the few Fox personalities who were not unwaveringly supportive of him. He began a flurry of tweets by saying, “The New [personal profile] foxnews is letting millions of GREAT people down! We have to start looking for a new News Outlet. Fox isn’t working for us anymore.”
The president had used tweets to call for the firings of news executives at NBC in November 2017 and at CNN in August 2018. In October 2019, Trump instructed his staff to cancel White House subscriptions to The New York Times and The Washington Post.
After Secretary of State Pompeo’s conflict with NPR in January 2020, conservative radio commentator Mark Levin called the public radio network a “Democratic Party propaganda operation” and asked on Twitter, “Why does NPR still exist?” Trump retweeted it, adding, “A very good question.” In his annual federal budget request, released in mid-February 2020, Trump proposed cutting to zero by 2023 the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes taxpayers’ money to NPR and the rest of public broadcasting.
https://cpj.org/reports/2020/04/trump-media-attacks-credibility-leaks/
6. Тем, кому дорога свобода слова, следует защищать свободу изданий вроде New York Times публиковать то, что они считают нужным, несмотря на административное давление со стороны людей, обладающих государственной властью и пытающихся удержать эту власть. Следует также защищать право подобных изданий отказываться предоставлять платформу расистским демагогам.
Populists like to claim that only they can protect their people from a dangerous world.
They're lying. https://t.co/f2KpgCZWsY
- Yascha Mounk (@Yascha_Mounk) June 22, 2020