Social Media Archives - Occasional Planet

The First Amendment and social media: Let’s review

Amy Kuo Hammerman — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 18:53:59 +0000

Some thoughts about the (likely) purposeful misuse of the the 1st Amendment freedom of speech in the wake of events like Simon & Shuster canceling their contract to publish Josh Hawley’s book, Twitter banning 45, and Amazon web-hosting terminating its services to Parler:

A quick review of what the 1st Amendment does and doesn’t do:

It prohibits the government from preventing exercise of free speech except under specific circumstances (notably, speech inciting violence). It does not prohibit private persons or entities from restricting the free speech of other private persons or entities.

So, the city of Skokie, Illinois was not allowed to deny a permit to Neo-Nazis wanting to hold a parade through their community full of Jewish people (particularly a lot of Holocaust survivors). If a Neo-Nazi started posting epithets on my FB page, I’d have every right to delete that mofo.

The baker/gay couple/wedding cake analogy

There is a meme going around that suggests that aggrieved right- wing folks upset about Twitter banning 45 should compare this situation to the homophobic baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. This is a flawed and dangerous analogy. The baker in that case was making a “religious freedom” argument that making the cake for a gay couple’s wedding was not an infringement of the couple’s civil rights (bakeries are public accommodations much in the way that grocery stores are), but that it infringed on his civil rights to practice his faith freely. I believe that the Supreme Court wrongly “punted” on issuing a decision explicitly on the religious freedom issue, but regardless, that’s not what’s at issue here.

Pretend you’re a bar owner

A more apt analogy would be to imagine if you owned a bar. There’s a guy sitting at the end of the bar verbally harassing other customers. You might just let him finish his beer and hope he’ll leave quickly. Let’s say that his harassment starts going beyond commenting on women’s figures and he starts saying stuff like, “Hey, bro, that turban dude over there said you’re a dumbass.” and “Hey man, that guy says your mom’s only a 4 but he banged her anyway.” Fights break out.

You’d have your bouncers throw the guys fighting out on their asses. You would likely also throw out the guy egging them on from the end of the bar even if he never threw a punch. In fact, the rest of your patrons would probably expect you to do it, especially if you didn’t throw him out when he was “just” harassing the women in the bar.

The 1st Amendment doesn’t prevent private entities from throwing obnoxious, belligerent assholes out of their bars. Neither Cheers nor Twitter are required by the 1st Amendment to allow people to say whatever the heck they want, especially when they are INCITING PEOPLE TO RIOT AND VIOLENT INSURRECTION.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

The post The First Amendment and social media: Let’s review appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Best of #bindersfullofwomen

Nicole Lopez — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:15:39 +0000

Tensions are running high this election season. Partisan politics have become more divisive and onslaughts of TV campaign ads have become more incisive. Thankfully, we have the wonders of the internet to lighten the mood. More specifically, thank God for Twitter.

Before Twitter, the nationwide response to binders full of women would have been experienced in solitude in living rooms across America, in momentary looks of bewilderment, grimaces, and chuckles. Perhaps a pundit would have recalled the quote and discussed it on air. In this scenario, I would not have laughed as much as I have in the past few days.

Oh, the power of a hash-tag.

Halfway through the debate, internet analysts were shocked to find trending #bindersfullofwomen and a spike in google searches of “binders full of women”. Doug Cronin summed up my evening in a tweet:

Without further ado, I hope you enjoy the world wide web’s finest responses to #bindersfullofwomen as much as I did.\

Everyone is all worked up about #bindersfullofwomen, but I'm most frightened by his attitude that women need to be home by 5 to make dinner.

— Betsey Stevenson (@BetseyStevenson) October 17, 2012

https://twitter.com/BernadttBendik/status/258781454761357312

First you get the money. Then you get the power. Then you get the #bindersfullofwomen.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) October 17, 2012

I'll never forget the day I found my dad's stash of #bindersfullofwomen #debate

— Libraryben (@Libraryben) October 17, 2012

I'd love to see the meeting minutes from that roundtable. #bindersfullofwomen

— David Weller (@dcweller) October 17, 2012

Gosh can't we find some women who are qualified? #bindersfullofwomen

— Irwin Feldman (@IrwinFeldman) October 17, 2012

https://twitter.com/Vittletweet/status/258824184044584960

#BindersFullOfWomen: now that we know where he keeps women, will he soon slip on the whereabouts of the rest of his tax papers?

— Ron Knowles (@reezybbimp) October 18, 2012

https://twitter.com/BlGBlRD/status/258638142272315392

I'll never forget the day I found my dad's stash of #bindersfullofwomen #debate

— Libraryben (@Libraryben) October 17, 2012

For some, the 140 character limit just didn’t cut it. Amazon customer reviews of “Avery Durable View Binders” have become a forum for satire. Hopefully all this commentary will result in more women in high-level positions

The post Best of #bindersfullofwomen appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What would political life be like without social media?

Arthur Lieber — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:00:15 +0000

Whether you’re running for president of the United States or dog catcher of Rufusville, it is considered essential for you to have a campaign presence in social media. Generally this means Facebook and Twitter.

Over the past decade as social media has grown geometrically, campaigns have numerous ways of delivering their messages to a variety of audiences. What began as a whimsical approach to promoting a campaign became a highly scientific and demographically oriented process.

As we get more and more bombarded with pleas for this and that from politicians and their surrogates, I couldn’t help but wonder how elections in 2012 would be different if there was no social media. What’s interesting is that in virtually every way that social media is involved, there is both an up side and a down side. It’s difficult to determine whether politics without social media would be better or worse; all we know is that it would be different.

Perhaps the two hopes for improving our campaigns as social media became more embedded in our lives were (1) it would be easier for candidates to deliver their messages to voters, and (2) because the internet and use of social media forums are virtually free, the cost of elections could be considerably reduced.

It is true that it is easier now for candidates to deliver their messages to voters. However, it some ways this has become analogous to the old saying about Mussolini, “he may have gotten the trains to run on time, but no one knew where the trains were going.” Political messages now arrive in our inbox almost instantaneously. However, does this speed result in the content of the message being more helpful to the public?

There is considerable similarity between what politicians send to us on-line and on paper. The common denominators are:

1. I want to serve you and your needs.

2. I’m an outstanding person with a showcase family.

3. The current system is rotten, but I’ll be a change agent helping the stench go away.

4. My opponents are either well-intentioned but mistaken, or in some cases they are simply slime bags.

5. Oh, and by the way, I really need your money.

What the politicians and their affiliated or non-affiliated organizations (theoretically such as SuperPACs), have either been unwilling or unable to do through social media, others have done. It’s called refining the message or elevating the conversation. Fortunately we still have numerous media outlets that publish remarkably insightful articles and posts on current political issues. Some originate in print media; others are strictly on-line.

Some citizens have regular on-line destinations where they access credible information and helpful editorials. Others receive links to articles that friends think would be of interest to them. But perhaps the most effective way for friends and associates to spread the word to others is through Facebook and Twitter. Facebook is particularly friendly; all you have to do is type in a link to an article and Facebook will make it “hot” with an accompanying image and the beginning of the text.

Whether the focus is on an issue, a movement, a campaign, a candidate, Facebook makes it easy for you to notify friends of what you’ve found. Consider the previous alternatives:

1. Send an e-mail to a “list-serve.”

2. Send emails to numerous individuals.

3. Send postcards or letters to others.

4. Make copies of the article and mail them to others.

5. Spread the news through word of mouth.

A simple post on Facebook or Twitter is much easier, although the most authentic way of communicating might be a direct conversation with someone else.

In response to the question of what political life would be like without social media, the clear answer is that there would be less information. But information can range from enlightening to distorting. If you’re fortunate enough to have well-educated and well-read friends, Facebook provides you with the helpful information you used to seek but rarely found. But when it comes to what the candidates serve you, it’s basically the same old same old. Too much simplification; too much demonizing of opponents; too much shilling for money.

Other than rare cases, if you stay clear of what the candidates and their surrogates post on social media, you’ll probably be a wiser voter because of what’s available on Facebook and Twitter. But as always, buyer beware.

The post What would political life be like without social media? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Social issues trump social media

Arthur Lieber — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 11:00:52 +0000

It hasn’t been a banner century for progressives. Not too long I re-read a book that my grandmother, Lucille Milner, wrote in 1954, The Education of an American Liberal. She was truly an activist who was engaged in virtually every area of social reform in the early 20th Century. The work that she and millions of others did paved the way for numerous accomplishments by 1920. These included women’s suffrage and the creation of organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the League of Women Voters.

So we’re now less than eight and a half years from 2020. What have progressives accomplished so far in this first fifth of the twenty-first century? It seems as if we’ve been steamrolled by friend and foe alike.

RH Reality Check recently published a most interesting article in AlterNet called How Abortion Caused the Debt Crisis. You’re probably saying, “Say what?” Actually I think that it makes very clear sense. It’s a reflection of the kind of outside the box thinking that progressives need to utilize more.

If I understand Reality Check correctly, he/she is saying that the anti-choice movement after Roe v. Wade launched a relentless effort by extreme conservatives to do damage to progressives wherever possible. Conservatives were so offended by women having the fundamental right of choice that they ramped up an effort to challenge liberal ideas in every area of public policy.

It was government, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, that provided the protection that women needed to have control of their reproductive rights. Some of us may have forgotten that Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, during the Nixon Administration. As much as Richard Nixon has been demonized by progressives, he presided over the continuing of and creation of a number of liberal programs while he was president. An insightful description of Nixon’s comfort level with using the federal government to help people in need is presented in an excellent op-ed by Kurt Anderson in the New York Times on August 5, 2011. It is of interest that when David Frost was interviewing Nixon for 28 hours in 1977, none of the four topics that he covered related to domestic policy. They were “Watergate,” “Nixon and the world,” “War at home and abroad,” and “Nixon, the man.”

But extremists on the right saw Roe v Wade as just one area of “federal intrusion” into people’s lives (ironically Roe v Wade actually reduced government intrusion into people’s lives). Conservatives began a full-scale attack on the federal government. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980. While statistics show that he strengthened federal programs, that was not the perception. Even George W. Bush strengthened some government programs because he had no regard for deficit spending (two discretionary wars which were not funded as well as huge tax cuts for the wealthy).

Reality Check’s piece on “How Abortion Caused the Debt Crisis” made me to a 180o turn on a belief that I had held since April, 1970. The first Earth Day was April 22 of that year. Even though I obviously favored environmental protection, I resented the Earth Day movement because I felt that it was siphoning off energy needed to continue to address the issues of civil rights and America’s presence in Vietnam. The “narrowcasting” position that I took over forty years ago possibly had merit then. However conservatives have clearly shown in this century that the way to bully progressives is to “wage war” on all fronts. They don’t give up an inch of ground on any issue unless they are forced to do so.

Thus my suggestion to progressives who want economic reform including as many stimulus programs as are needed to successfully put America back to work is to engage conservatives wherever they choose to do damage to the welfare of the American people. We can no longer back off from engaging in discussion on abortion. We need to protect rights and expand affordability and accessibility. We can’t be silent about gun control when a Congresswoman is shot while conducting an informal outdoor meet and greet. We can’t look the other way when the Environmental Protection Agency is being stripped of its powers. We cannot pretend that the National Endowment for the Arts is not constantly threatened with extinction.

Like conservatives, progressives are currently very active utilizing social media. Facebook is an excellent way to pass the word around and sometimes organize. But this digital town hall does not provide us with commitment to vital issues. We need to augment our use of social media with a renewed effort to challenging conservatives on all social issues that are important to us. We have been intimidated into thinking that these issues are too risky to address. If that is so, what will we say when the limited protections that we have now are further diminished?

My thanks to Reality Check for thinking outside the box and giving me a perspective that I previously did not see. As if I needed another reason to support abortion rights, now I do. It’s all part of a movement to convince the American people that the federal government is very capable of meeting their needs and it is the one institution that can truly protect their rights. Maybe in another forty years I’ll change my mind, but I’m good for now.

The post Social issues trump social media appeared first on Occasional Planet.

U.S. Congress: Where lawmakers meet to “tweet”

Gloria Shur Bilchik — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 19:04:54 +0000

According to The Hill, The Republican Study Committee (RSC) declared Monday [March 1, 2010] a “Twitter Day,” encouraging its members to tweet about their “commitment,” or favorite issue in Congress. Fifty members of the RSC, a group of conservative House Republicans, are reported to have joined in.

Example:

Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) tweeted: My commitment is health reform that empowers patients and not Washington.

No doubt, Democrats–already reported to be lagging behind in social media marketing–will launch counter-measures. Republican Twitter Day is likely to be an early salvo in an escalating battle in the mini-blogosphere. With a limit of 140 characters per message, such is the sad, truncated, bumper-sticker nature of political “dialogue” inside the Beltway these days.

The post U.S. Congress: Where lawmakers meet to “tweet” appeared first on Occasional Planet.