If You Disagree With This Post, You're Joining A Bullying Lynch Mob

We name things based upon how we feel about them. We also feel about things based on how we've named them.

Politicians understand this. When they want to downplay the invasion of a sovereign nation, they call it an "uncontested arrival." When they justify torture of the sort that we hanged people for within living memory, they call it "enhanced interrogation technique." Language manages attitude.

Politicians and priests intentionally deploy language to guide thought. But we all do it unintentionally every day, shaping the culture with the language we choose.

This can lead to unintended consequences. We may mean to say that words should be rebutted with other words rather than with official coercion, and that the best response to speech we don't like is more speech. But the words we choose can subtly promote the understanding that words are violent acts, and therefore something suitable for regulation.

[Read more…]

My Bad Use of Force Decision Shows You Shouldn't Second-Guess My Use of Force Decisions

The Blaze, Glenn Beck's tequila-sweat dream-diary, repeats a law enforcement talking point today. The talking point — "scrutinizing use of force will kill cops" — is rarely served this explicitly or uncritically.

The story's about a Birmingham police officer who got pistol-whipped at a traffic stop. A suspect from the car he stopped approached him aggressively, cold-cocked him, and pistol-whipped him. Cold-hearted bystanders took pictures of him bleeding on the ground rather than helping. Thankfully, the officer will recover. But he's saying that he didn't use force in time to defend himself because of fear of how the media might treat him:

"A lot of officers are being too cautious because of what's going on in the media," said the officer, who asked to remain anonymous for the safety of his family. "I hesitated because I didn't want to be in the media like I am right now."

The Blaze pointedly notes:

The suspect in question, Janard Shamar Cunningham, is a black man and was seemingly unarmed during the incident.

Police — eagerly quoted by The Blaze — are using this to complain about media coverage of their actions:

Heath Boackle, a sergeant with the Birmingham Police Department and president of the city's Fraternal Order of Police, said Thursday that cops are "walking on eggshells because of how they're scrutinized in the media."

Police Chief A.C. Roper sees the episode — as well as the reaction, including celebratory and vitriolic comments posted online alongside images of the wounded officer — as symptomatic of a larger problem, in which some don't respect law enforcement.

"The nobility and integrity of policing has been challenged," Roper said. "As a profession, we have allowed popular culture to draft a narrative which is contrary to the amazing work that so many officers are doing everyday across this nation."

Here the typical subtext is closer to plain text: reporting on, scrutinizing, and criticizing officer use of force puts officers in danger by making them hesitate and second-guess themselves.

This is monstrous gibberish.

A cop made a bad use of force call. Thank God he lived. But a bad use of force call is not a good argument for less scrutiny of use of force. "I have trouble making decisions because of fear of how I will be treated in the media" does not convey "I'm capable of good judgment about the use of force, so you should trust me more."

Chief Roper complains about "popular culture" drafting a "narrative." What he means is that he's mad that there has been a mild drift away from the existing narrative — the law and order (and Law & Order), thin-blue-line narrative in which the cop is presumed to be the good guy and force is presumed to be righteous, a necessary tool for discovering truth and punishing evil, thwarted only by dishonest lawyers and publicity-hungry politicians. That narrative has been — and remains — overwhelming.

Police work is not, contra Chief Roper, an occupation of nobility and integrity, any more than any other profession is. It's a profession made up of noble and ignoble people, honest officers and liars, decent folks and utter thugs. It does not deserve the cultural free pass we've given it. The complaints here show how extensive that free pass is. Consider: the officer and his supporters aren't saying that he hesitated using deadly force on a human being because using deadly force on a human being is something to be done with great care. They're saying he hesitated — and that other officers might hesitate — because of how it might look on the news.

If "maybe I shouldn't kill this guy unless I have a good reason" isn't an adequate motivator to govern deadly force — and our history suggests that it isn't — I'm okay with "maybe I don't want to be on the news" stepping in to help.

Edited to add: I took some shots at The Blaze here, but the CNN story linked above is just as cop-deferential.

Lead Us Not Into Temptation

Imagine a controversial feminist, much maligned for incendiary rhetoric about gender relations. Scheduled to make a speech to like-minded people in some bastion of conservatism, she is approached by male critics, doused with several drinks, and pursued down the street by an angry, shouting crowd, quite plausibly out to do her physical harm.

This scenario shouldn't be hard to imagine; outspoken women of all political stripes get death threats and abuse all the time. Most of us would condemn it. Most of us would be dismayed by the attack on our hypothetical feminist.

Yet too many of us are willing to cheer when the person doused with drinks and pursued down the street is saying things we find to be horrific and evil.

Take the oozing pustule Daryush Valizadeh, better known as Roosh V. Roosh — whom we have mocked before — is thoroughly awful in every way. He's a vocal anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, a proud rapist of women too drunk to consent, and generally a grotesque dehumanizer of women. He wrote a piece suggesting that rape should be legal on private property. Though he now claims it was satire, it's a testament to his persona that it's perfectly plausible that he meant it literally. At the very least, it's satire in the Ann Coulter sense, meaning that he wrote what he thought and then just punched it up a little bit.

Naturally he's controversial. Just as naturally, he has fans. Nobody ever went broke telling folks they're right to hate the people they already hate, and that all their ills are the fault of the people their foes. Roosh planned a Canadian tour, which predictably was met with a petition to deny him entry to Canada. In other words, people used their free speech to petition the government to use force and state power to exclude someone based on his speech. That's a worthy subject of its own post, but put it aside for now.

While in Montreal, out in the city looking for women to whom he could be a repulsive tool, Roosh had several drinks thrown on him and was pursued down the street by an angry group shouting obscenities.1 Many responses have been amused, triumphal, or approving.

It's beyond my modest abilities to feel empathy for Roosh; I won't pretend to. There is in my gut, in my lizard brain, a visceral joy at seeing him humiliated and threatened.

But we try not to order society via our lizard brains, and that's a good thing. Now, if we were to govern by my lizard brain, that would be perfectly acceptable, because my deep-seated hates and fears and instincts are all reasonable and proper. The problem is all those other damn lizard brains out there, worn by lunatics with different hates and fears and instincts. Roosh has a lizard brain too, and so do the losers willing to pay sixty bucks to hear him talk about how evil non-plastic women are. When we unleash the lizard brains — when we give into the temptation to ignore the distinction between speech and assault, between insulting and attacking — we will find to our great regret that the majority of lizard brains don't work like the ones we see on our carefully moderated Twitter feed. Most lizard brains are really fucking scary. For every lizard brain cheering when someone we hate gets chased down the threat by a screaming mob, there's two our three lizard brains ready to cheer when that happens to someone we agree with. I am more afraid of the consequences of normalizing and condoning this behavior than I am gleeful about the humiliation of an awful person.

I'm not saying you shouldn't revile Roosh. I'm not one of the people saying we need to respond gently to Roosh so his speech won't be chilled. Quite the contrary. Revile away. But keep your hands to yourself. Drench people in words, not beer. Let your words pursue them down the street.

Yes, I know. This is "concern trolling" or "slippery slope fallacy" and lack of perspective and sympathy for the devil and so forth. But go out unto the internet and look around and see the freaks and scum and extremists. Then come back and look me in the eye and tell me it's a good thing to encourage that crowd to react to speech like this.

When Lightning Strikes An Utter Tool

Harry Vincent is a 19-year-old college student and kind of a dick. That's banal. Lots of 19-year-olds are dicks, and many of them are college students. Harry Vincent is notable because he has been struck by proverbial lightning — he offended someone online, and that person had the inclination and free time to complain about him to his university, and his university had the shitty values and utter lack of proportion or good sense to punish him for it. That's an unlikely chain of events. But do we really want it to be more likely?

Harry Vincent goes to Texas Christian University. In his spare time, he likes to say "beaners" and imagine people he doesn't like being "exiled" to the Sahara Desert, which he may or may not think is a country.

ThatsNotWhatAnApostropheIsForDipshit

DeepThoughts

HurrHurrrImaPatriot

That's Harry — indifferently literate, choadish, kinda racist, and not particularly creative or good at any of it. The average 13-year-old on Reddit would school his sorry ass on being notably offensive in a hot second. Harry — who goes by @classypatriot, and probably not ironically — is just plain dull.

The internet is oozing with Harrys. But this one caught the attention of a some no-rocket-scientist-either woman in Maryland who encouraged her readers to complain to TCU about him. Harry wasn't speaking on behalf of TCU, or using their Twitter account, or talking to or about TCU students, and wasn't a TCU public relations official or anything. This person "Kelsey" apparently just felt that assholes shouldn't go to college. Ridiculous. Who would run our hedge funds?

Normally this wouldn't be a problem. If sensible people had received Kelsey's complaints of private-time toolbaggery by Harry, they would have shaken their heads and gone back to whatever it is that the hideously swollen academic-administrative class does all day. But apparently TCU lacks sensible people, because TCU suspended Harry Vincent and restricted him from dorms and campus activities. The FIRE has the story, and wrote TCU a stern letter. TCU is a private entity and not bound by the First Amendment — but, as FIRE points out, they claim to celebrate free speech, and ought not if they're going to act like this.

Does TCU, a private entity, have the right to suspend Harry without anything resembling due process for engaging in patently protected speech? Yep. Is its decision to do so worthy of our respect? No. It's ridiculous. First of all, it's arbitrary. I guaranfreakingtee you that a sizable percentage of TCU's student body routinely acts like assholes on the internet. Harry's being singled out because a petty and disturbed person ran across him — he's been struck by lightning. Second, it's unsustainable. Even the army of administrators that colleges support these days can't possibly keep up with policing and regulating the private online speech of students. It's a waste of money to try. Third, this runs contrary to what a college ought to be. TCU isn't some American madrassa openly advocating for uniform thought, like a Bob Jones or a Liberty. If you go to one of those places, you know what you're getting into. No, TCU is nominally a respected academic institution devoted to free inquiry. Suspending people for political expression, however uncreatively dickish, is thoroughly un-academic.

The appropriate American remedy for Harry Vincent being a bigoted twerp is (1) absent fatal alcohol poisoning, him growing up, and (2) more speech imposing social consequences. I suppose being suspended from a private institution is a form of social consequence, but it's a thoroughly disproportionate and disreputable one. Imposing official school punishments on the Harry Vincents of this world suggests that the TCUs of this world can't counter his oafish speech — that all the professors and administrators and earnest students cannot make a convincing counter-argument to some slackjawed dipshit saying "beaner." Doesn't inspire much confidence in the educational system, does it?

TCU deserves scorn for this. They deserve an object lesson as well. If TCU thinks that it ought to regulate its students' private speech when the fragile pussywillows of the internet object to it, why not take TCU at its word and help it along? I'm sure it will be easy to identify TCU students on social media and comment sections and blogs. Why not examine what they say, and write to the administration of TCU if it irks anyone? I'm not just talking about Harry Vincent's sophomoric twaddle. For every TCU student who says #blacklivesmatter, someone ought to write TCU protesting that #alllivesmatter, FOR FEELS. For every student who says something unflattering about Israel there ought to be an angry email. For every off-color joke, there should be a statement about the over-sexualization of society. For every student who makes a hurtful remark about political groups, TCU's administrators ought to get a missive from a Concerned Person. Maybe it's ridiculous to take personal offense at those things, you might say. Well, you might think so. But TCU is clearly interested in how random internet citizens feel about their students and their words. How can we not help them along? You can find email addresses here. Be polite.

Postscript: if you are inclined to write a comment complaining that I ought to be defending free speech without criticizing the speech or the speaker, kindly snort my taint, fool.

Popehat Signal: Please Help Mandy Nagy And Her Family

It's time for the Popehat Signal. I failed last time I lit it in this case, but I'm lighting it again, hoping that the community of civic-minded, speech-cherishing, evil-fighting lawyers will respond.

I need your help defending a stroke victim and her family against a domestic terrorist who has replaced his bombs with ongoing vexatious litigation.

[Read more…]

The Man We Need: Kickass J. Biteme, Presidential Candidate

I'd like you to meet Kickass J. Biteme, candidate for President of these United States.

Mr. Biteme — or Kick, as he prefers to be called — says what he thinks. And what he usually thinks is that American politics is petty, venal bullshit.

Kickass tells it like it is. He calls out the media for a pack of smug, entitled scribblers every day. He knows how we can deal with America's enemies: blow them right the fuck up, instanter. He kicks over the trough of slops from which Congress feeds and mocks their pretensions. He knows how to cure ever social ill, how to meet every challenge: do something fast and muscular, and stop talking. He has no truck with carefully crafted campaign statements.

"But why do I need Kickass Biteme?" you might ask. "Trump's my man."

Well, sure. Trump's got a decent shot at winning your id's vote. Trump's sure of himself. Trump's loud. But Trump's a real person, and therein lies his flaw. The realities of his past disrupt the sweet song of our viscera. Kickass Biteme's got no baggage. When Kick rants about government for sale, we won't be troubled by reminders that he's been a frequent buyer. When Kick vents against the target of the day, we won't have to remember that he was sucking up to them a moon's turn ago when it suited his purposes. When Kick blasts manufacturers for sending jobs overseas, nobody's going to be handing around polos with his vulgar insignia made by Laotian eight-year-olds. When Kick cuts a sneering interviewer off at the knees, we can be confident that it's robust American moral vigor, not just the latest thread in a tired pattern of childish petulance. Kick is pure. Kick isn't a poseur.

Since the ballot doesn't (yet) have a box for "none of the above," Kick is the word and the way — Kick is the guy we back to say "not a single one of you lying narcissistic motherfuckers deserves anything more than a boot in the ass." Kick is the way we ask "why should we pretend be happy that it's time to choose between the clap and a crowbar to the nuts again?" Kick's how we express our outrage at the naked emperor, at the sordid, venal pantomime of American politics — without the cognitive dissonance of endorsing someone who is, themselves, clearly full of shit, someone who is just clever and cynical enough to see our disgust as a distinct voting bloc.

Vote Kick in 2016. Accept no imitations.

Top Seven Things I Like About Internet Shame Mobs

7) Initial news reports are always completely accurate, so we know we've got the right guy.

6) Initial news reports are always full of nuance, so we know that we understand the situation and can distinguish sarcasm from seriousness, and being nearby from being the active participant.

5) Internet shame mobs weigh the evidence carefully and deliberately before attacking, so they only happen to people who deserve them.

4) Internet shame mobs use the rule of law and due process, so when they occur by accident or to the wrong person it's easy for them to make amends and restore reputations, jobs, and friendships.

3) Internet shame mobs always make sure that the punishment is proportional to the crime.

2) Every member of an internet shame mob is without sin, so any one of them is morally just in throwing the first stone.

1) Once the internet shame mob has done its job, the button will be be offered to someone whom you don't know.

What Charles Carreon could teach ICANN

Popehat is happy to offer a new guest post from Cathy Gellis.

There is no question that the right of free speech necessarily includes the right to speak anonymously. This is partly because sometimes the only way for certain speech to be possible at all is with the protection of anonymity.

And that’s why so much outrage is warranted when bullies try to strip speakers of their anonymity simply because they don’t like what these people have to say, and why it’s even more outrageous when these bullies are able to. If anonymity is so fragile that speakers can be so easily unmasked, fewer people will be willing to say the important things that need to be said, and we all will suffer for the silence.

We’ve seen on these blog pages examples of both government and private bullies make specious attacks on the free speech rights of their critics, often by using subpoenas, both civil and criminal, to try to unmask them. But we’ve also seen another kind of attempt to identify Internet speakers, and it’s one we’ll see a lot more of if the proposal ICANN is currently considering is put into place.

In short, remember Charles Carreon? [Read more…]

Gamer Gate vs Anti Gamer Gate A Civil Discussion on Inclusiveness

Consider this post a teaser trailer. Randi Harper, author of a Gamer Gate block bot and I will be debating discussing the thesis

"are the virtues of an open society / inclusiveness / debate best served by excluding those who are not in favor of full inclusiveness?"

(I think the answer is "no").

Randi's busy for a week or two (and so am I), but hopefully next week she and I will have the email discussion, which will then be tidied up for formating and posted here.

In Randi's words:

this is going to be fun. ;)

DoJ's Gag Order On Reason Has Been Lifted — But The Real Story Is More Outrageous Than We Thought

Last Friday the folks at Reason confirmed what I suggested on Thursday — that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, after hitting Reason with a federal grand jury subpoena to unmask anonymous hyperbolic commenters, secured a gag order that prevented them from writing about it.

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch describe how it all went down. Read it.

So, the truth is out — and it's more outrageous than you thought, even more outrageous than it appears at first glance.

What, you might ask, could be more outrageous than the United States Department of Justice issuing a questionable subpoena targeting speech protected by the First Amendment, and then abusing the courts to prohibit journalists from writing about it?

The answer lies in the everyday arrogance of unchecked power.

[Read more…]