Showing posts with label Freedom of political expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of political expression. Show all posts

Saturday, January 29, 2022

Relying on media for research is like buying a used car

 A recent posting on a private political Facebook group posed an interesting question.  It came from a person who usually was known for reproducing MAGA memes. Most memes are someone else's opinions that also ring a bell with your opinions. only it articulates it better... Liberals, this meme complained, condemn people who like doing their own research and that is what good consumers do.   What's wrong with that? If you are forwarding memes others authored is just that, a way to say I agree...  All it does is give you confidence that someone else agrees with your opinion and likes it, too. But it may deserve a rebuttal, a response, too. This one did. 

  I replied to the passed-on meme this way.:"Smart consumers also know the difference between deceptive, false, and puff advertising and seek authoritative and independent information from more than one source. . The old saying: garbage in, garbage out applies here. Too bad there is not a Better Business Bureau for politics. There is not a Federal Trade Commission demanding truth in advertising for politicians. "  

Assume you are now doing your research:  You run across a quotation or facts, or alternative facts, an opinion, and you want to sort the nuggets from the trash.  Going back to the consumer analogy, here is some advice:  treat it like buying a used car:.

Buying a used car, especially from an unlicensed individual, is a tricky business. It is buyer beware. Politicians can lie, cherry-pick and twist data, and even promote just about everything they want and it is sheltered by the First Amendment. For those doing their own research in politics, it is the wild west out there, just like buying that used car from a stranger.  The good news is you can always find someone or something to justify your preconceived notions when you do your "research".  The bad news is there is also a bunch of junk that requires some sorting out.  The sorting process is one facet of what is called "critical thinking". It takes an effort to do it.   Saying what you think is not a crime; acting it out could be, Shouting fire in a crowded theater is the famous standard that limits free speech. So far, even giving false information about Covid is not a crime, but some privately owned media companies choose to ban it either out of fear of a civil lawsuit or bad public relations. Media vehicles can also pick and choose what they permit, but not the government who cannot pass now laws forbidding free speech. Planning and directing an insurrection or violent acts also limits free speech protections.. Violent acts on behalf of a cause are not protected from free speech.  In dictatorships, saying what you think can also be a crime, but so far in our USA we still have a democracy. If your goal is to just make your case, to convince someone else, that is one thing., but it assumes the target your posting likes the source from which you got your information. That also requires some critical thinking and anticipation of pushback and rebuttal.    If your goal is to form an opinion or to seek verification of others' opinions and facts, that requires a different kind of research and critical thinking., independence of thought, flexibility to consider and reject or modify conclusions of already held notions.   That one takes some self-discipline as well as critical thinking.              Back to buying that used car.

 The gut feeling could be one indication and the old adage applies:  Would you buy a used car from this guy?  The other is asking for a report from the Better Business Bureau if the seller is a business o use whatever tools are out there...Blue books,  some advertised platforms to see this car had been in a wreck, and take it to a certified independent mechanic.  You may be dazzled by its shiny new red paint and squeaky clean interior, but what is under the hood and the drive train counts much.    Data and opinions are important, but the source that data, or facts, need to be objective. In buying this shiny used car, you may take it to a certified mechanic for analysis, one who has no stake in whether you buy it or not,  give it spin and a trial, and insist on a cooling-off period before you sign the papers. Try some of those websites that may tell you if the car had been in a wreck before or consumer reports that independently have many reviews. of that make and model.  You at least may still like the car for its looks, but you will also know what trouble or lack of it you are buying. That is being a good consumer.

 



                       

Friday, July 26, 2019

The art of free speech meets the Fraser sign code

The art of free speech met the Fraser sign code: result, a lawsuit

Update: 9 18 19
https://www.skyhinews.com/news/fraser-amends-sign-code-after-aclu-lawsuit/

A version of this was published by the Sky Hi News July 29, 2019
muftic-the-art-of-free-speech-meets-fraser-sign-code-and-results-in-a-lawsuit/

Local governments and municipal code enforcers across Colorado must have taken a second look at their sign code regulations lately. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the town of Fraser in July claiming the town "silenced clients simply because it does not approve of what they have to say or the way in which they choose to say it... The Constitution  (state and US) does not allow this kind of government censorship of expression. The Town's sign code is a content-based regulation of speech that violates the First Amendment".   Aside from the free speech and due process issues, the age-old question is "what is art"? That will not be resolved by this suit, but art has been a vehicle for political protest throughout history. Per the July 25, 2019, Sky-Hi News report, the Town is reviewing the matter.

 I cannot predict how the suit will be resolved, but I assume it is connected with the Town of Fraser's goal of turning this old logging town into an art center, therefore giving preference to content that is "art". At issue per the ACLU is that the Fraser sign code exempts art from adhering to physical restrictions such as size, numbers, and placement, in effect exempting one kind of content but not exempting other content like political expression.  The ACLU  also contends Fraser's ordinance was written so vaguely, those governed could not understand how to comply, depriving them of their right of due process.  The issue arose when Fraser residents erected signs on their private property within the town criticizing Donald Trump and climate change policies that exceeded the size and other physical restrictions placed on nonart signs. The residents then tried to make their signs into more artistic looking in order to comply and still were told they were subject to penalties and fines.

Throughout history, art has been used as a form of political protest.  In fact, in recent times, one work of art has been credited with ending a civil war.  Pablo Picasso's 1937  stunning "Guernica", an eleven by twenty-five-foot painting of disjointed figures in stark black /white/gray/blue cubism,  depicted the terror and horrifying results of a Nazi bombing of innocent civilians in a Basque, Spain, town.  Picasso was commissioned to paint the subject by the anti-fascist forces fighting the Spanish civil war.    Of course, this bombing of civilians in Spain was only the precursor to modern warfare and the widespread death and destruction of innocent civilians in World War II.  Nonetheless, it has also been taken as an anti-war message. One does not have to be a Picasso to paint what we would consider "art".


  • I wonder what would happen if I displayed a full-size replica of Guernica with a caption: Stop selling weapons to the Saudis who use them to kill innocent civilians in Yemen. To put the shoe on the other foot, what would happen if a neighbor erected a very large sign replicating Andy Warhol type pop art style with multiple MAGA hats in the place of Campbell Soup cans, with captions exhorting support of Donald Trump? My neighbor may live in Fraser, but it is a hypothetical question: my home borders the town of Fraser, but I am in unincorporated Grand County, so the question regarding my sign would not arise from Fraser authorities.  The Town of Fraser has opened a can of worms.

_____________________________________________________________________________
 A personal note: my paths have crossed Guernica more than once: While I was a student at Northwestern, Guernica was on display at the Chicago Art Institute in the latter 1950s. Before it was returned to Spain in 1981, and during World War II until then, it was housed in New York's Museum of Modern Art (MOMA). I lived in NYC and then visited New York and MOMA often. Each time I saw it, it got me in my gut.  Some call it the Mona Lisa of modern art, it is so iconic and compelling.  I am privileged to have seen the original of both. Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup cans are also on display at MoMA and I have seen them, too.

https://www.widewalls.ch/political-art/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/andy-warhol-campbells-soup-cans-1962/

https://www.pablopicasso.org/guernica.jsp

https://www.efe.com/efe/english/varios/madrid-to-celebrate-35th-anniversary-since-return-of-picasso-s-guernica/50000269-3035701

https://www.skyhinews.com/news/aclu-sues-fraser-over-sign-code/

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/25/aclu-lawsuit-fraser-free-speech-sign-code/

From the Colorado ACLU press release
“The Town of Fraser has silenced our clients simply because it does not approve of what they have to say or the way in which they choose to say it. The Constitution does not allow this kind of government censorship of expression. The Town’s sign code is a content-based regulation of speech that violates the First Amendment.” https://aclu-co.org/aclu-lawsuit-town-ordinance-silences-residents-freedom-of-speech/

https://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-07-25-FINAL-Complaint.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2eccZvOAXZEIaQiwGiINnuNdFICFHIFrwROWT90T63QXXs81I84avwe_4
From the court filings:
1. Plaintiff Alan Jensen, a resident of Fraser, wishes to display three pieces of political art designed by Plaintiff Melinda McWilliams in his front yard to protest President Donald Trump and call for action on global warming. In response, the Town of Fraser has threatened to enforce its unconstitutional sign code (“Code”) against Plaintiffs, chilling their protected speech. 2. The Code is expansive and applies to all signs erected on private property within the Town. It prescribes myriad regulations for certain signs, including limits on the size, placement, type, duration, and a number of signs. 3. Yet even while substantially restricting certain signs, the Code exempts particular categories of signs based on their content and fails to narrowly tailor the restrictions to any compelling or substantial interest. Therefore, the Code is an unconstitutional content-based restriction that violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, both on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs. 2 50277851.3 4. The Code’s categories are also poorly defined and substantially overlap, leaving residents in the dark as to whether a desired sign or artwork will trigger threats of prosecution. Therefore, the Code is also unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause and article II, section 25 of the Colorado Constitution.