Tag: free speech

What I believe

I am a classical liberal fusionist. The following brief outline will hopefully explain what that means followed by a brief summary of where Trump stands relative to my beliefs of what is good for America.

I want to be free to make my own decisions about my life and for you to be similarly free as well. As we live together with 8.3 billion others, we must have understandings/rules/laws guiding our interactions if we are to live peacefully with each other. An efficient government limited to those purposes is essential. As a classical liberal I strongly support the limited, enumerated powers and structure (checks and balances) of government provided by the American constitution. Our constitution provides that our government will have limited powers sufficient to protect us from foreign and domestic threats of corruption, fraud and attack, secure our property rights, adjudicate disputes, provide public goods (e.g. roads, pollution regulations) and establish the rules (guardrails) for private enterprise. Our constitution specifically prohibits our government from infringing upon our freedom of speech, assembly, or religion.

Such limited government powers would leave use with substantial freedom to choose our own way of life. The quality of our lives will depend importantly on how wisely we use that freedom. While it would be ideal for those in need of help to receive it from family and friends and from private charities established for that purpose, I believe that the private provision of charity on any large scale has been so displaced by government welfare that I accept the government’s role in providing a social safety. But the current mix of programs restrict our freedoms and are inefficient. I propose a Universal Basic Income as the most efficient approach and the most consistent with individual freedom. https://wcoats.blog/2020/08/20/replacing-social-security-with-a-universal-basic-income/

America has flourished because the substantial freedom our government leaves us is generally used well. The vast majority of us use our freedom in ways that respect the freedoms of others. The three monotheistic religions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam (and no doubt others as well)—provide important guidance for virtuous behavior. These include honesty, charity, love, prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, humility, forgiveness, etc. Virtue is the other leg of Fusionism, which is explored in the wonderful new book by Stephanie Slade: Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right.

While respecting the freedoms of others, I may choose (within my abilities) how I make my living, whom to buy from and sell to (free trade), and how to spend my free time and with whom. Much of our relationships with others will reflect the locally accepted norms of good behavior. This extends far beyond driving on the same side of the road. Some of these norms have been codified into laws, which we expect to be applied equally to all of us. Some are the norms of courteous behavior (good manners). Thus, freedom and rights have fostered the entrepreneurship that has made the U.S. the economic envy of the world.

But today, with the internet and jet planes, our world extends far beyond our own communities. Engaging with as much of the world as possible peacefully has benefits. It can enhance our safety by making agreements with other governments that reduce the occurrences of war. It can add joy to our lives by exposing us to the many wonder of other cultures and geographies. It has enormously lifted the average standard of living because of the extension of the benefits of specialization made possible by trade. Global average per capital real income has risen 13 to 15 times (1,200 to 1,400%) over the last two centuries. This after many, many centuries of virtually no change.      

But what is required to travel to or trade with other countries? How can our planes fly over and safely land in other countries? How do we prevent the signals from other countries’ satellites from interfering with the internet and other signals from our own as they fly over? Just as our Federal government can establish laws to protect our safety, liberties and property across state lines that benefit us all, they need to do so across country borders.  https://wcoats.blog/2020/12/01/the-rule-of-law-china-and-the-u-s/ Without such agreements we would not be free to trade and travel nearly as widely as now. https://wcoats.blog/2017/01/06/the-liberal-international-order/

We have failed to live up to these standards on many occasions, but they are the north star to which we strive. Or at least until now. On July 23, 2019, speaking to a Turning Point USA audience (and on other occasions as well) President Trump said: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” With that he threatened to throw away the limits on the power of our government and the checks and balances on its exercise. Some of his policies have been consistent with the principals I believe in, but many have not.

The Economy: The government’s limited role of protecting property rights and promoting business transparency has unleashed the entrepreneurial energies that have led to our country’s flourishing. Like President Biden before him, Trump thinks his ideas of where to put our resources are often better than the market’s—thus projecting government activities beyond its proper functions. He was right, however, to think that many government agencies and their regulations were more burdensome than helpful to the private sector. A review and streamlining of the government’s oversight of the economy would be a good idea. Unfortunately the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk was a crude hatchet job that did more harm than good.  https://wcoats.blog/2020/11/04/saving-the-american-dream/

Immigrants: America would not exist without immigrants. https://wcoats.blog/2026/07/06/immigrants-2/ Currently they are important to provide the younger workers needed to pay the expenses (e.g. Social Security benefits) of our growing number of longer-living retirees. Rather than allowing more legal immigrants, Trump has reduced the number and promised to deport those here illegally. https://wcoats.blog/2026/02/08/immigrants/ . While I support efforts to prevent illegal immigration, Trump’s quickly recruited and improperly trained ICE agents have murdered innocent Americans and deported American citizens, along with illegal immigrants, without due process and in violation of court orders. The rule of law be damned. https://wcoats.blog/2025/08/29/immigration/

Free Speech: Our constitution specifically protects free speech for a good reason: https://wcoats.blog/2012/09/15/further-thoughts-on-free-speech/ It helps build public consensus and support for good public policies.

Trump goes ballistic when criticized and misuses executive power to punish critics. These have included suing critics, threating the licenses of their employers, etc. https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/21/our-first-amendment-freedom-of-speech/

“ABC late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel said an interview he conducted with Texas Democratic Senate nominee James Talarico will not air on broadcast because of what he called threats issued to his network by President Trump’s Federal Communications Commission.” The Hill 9/10/2026

Our constitution provides checks and balances on the powers of government in an effort to prevent (or minimize) the overreaching of government. Donald Trump took major actions against agency inspectors general across both of his presidential terms: Between April and May 2020, he removed or replaced five agencies’ inspectors general in a series of late-Friday decisions: just days into his second term, he dismissed seventeen independent inspectors general at once across cabinet departments—including Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, and Energy. Subsequent individual firings followed throughout early 2025 (such as the USAID IG in February 2025).

The nonpartisan inspectors general review agency programs, financial statements, and operations, recommend changes to make government operations more economical and effective, manage hotlines and intake processes for employees to report wrongdoing safely, and report their findings to the heads of the agencies they monitor and to Congress. In September 2025, a federal judge ruled that the mass January 2025 firings violated federal law because the administration failed to provide the mandatory 30-day notice and substantive rationale to Congress, though the court did not order their reinstatement.

At least 20 high-ranking generals, admirals, and civilian defense leaders have been directly fired or pushed out of their roles by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Trump. When including behind-the-scenes actions—such as blocking promotion rosters, cancelling appointments, and forcing early retirements—over 80 generals and admirals have had their careers altered, blocked, or cut short as part of a sweeping restructuring aimed at downsizing senior military leadership and reshaping the Pentagon. According to my military friends, those removed were generally the best of the lot. Not bowing to Hegseth’s silly games proved fatal. Where might this be going?

Trade: The Trump administration has stifled the free market allocation of resources to the detriment of our growth in several ways. He has complained about offshoring manufacturing resulting in our trade deficits (which by the way help finance the government’s fiscal deficits thus keeping interest rates on government bonds lower than otherwise). In fact, however, manufacturing output in the US is greater than it has ever been. Domestic employment in manufacturing, however, has fallen because of increased labor productivity.

Trump claims that high tariffs are needed to reduce our trade deficit. But he has not imposed them in ways sanctioned by the World Trade Organization, i.e., to improve competitiveness with a level playing field. His tariffs often seem weapons to get countries to agree to other totally unrelated goals. Trump’s bullying has cost the U.S. more than trade. Often his threats require that foreign companies building plants in the US give shares to the Federal government. The US government now owns shares in some 40 or so such companies (https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/10/econ-101-capitalism-and-socialism/ ). And the courts have struck down some of his tariffs. https://wcoats.blog/2024/11/26/tariffs/

Wars and foreign policy:  During his Presidential campaign, Trump promised to end our forever wars. Then, with Israel, he ordered an invasion of Iran. One reason seemed to be to stop Iran from developing atomic bombs (correcting Trump’s first term error of withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran which prevented such a development). https://wcoats.blog/2026/04/02/iran-and-the-bomb/. “Trump’s threats against countries trading with Iran expose the limits of US economic power, as allies resist Washington’s demands and the global economy moves towards a less American-dominated order.” “Trump is hastening the decline of American power,” by Joseph E. Stiglitz 9/12/2026. https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/09/trump-is-hastening-the-decline-of-american-power/

Trump’s continue support of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Gaza and increasingly the West Bank has further isolated the US, which stands alone with Israel in the UN in defense of these humanitarian atrocities. https://wcoats.blog/2026/03/31/fixing-palestine/

I agree with Trump’s insistence that others (in particular NATO members) pay their share of the cost of the defense they get with American help. But insulting our allis, often with tariff increases or threats, is not in America’s interest, nor in compliance with WTO rules.

In The New York Times (9/10/2026), Tom Friedman proclaimed that: “Trump is the most un-American president in my lifetime. No president has done more, and continues to do more, to unravel the post-World War II institutions and alliances that were built and sustained by his predecessors. We are talking about… our intimate relationships with Canada and Mexico and our military alliances with South Korea and Japan — to name but a few. These relationships and institutions together produced global and American prosperity and great power peace for generations….”

During his presidential terms, Donald Trump initiated U.S. withdrawals from or ceased participation in a wide range of prominent international treaties, agreements, and bodies:

  • Paris Climate Agreement: Withdrawn during his first term and formally pulled out of a second time in January 2025.
  • Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA): The U.S. withdrew in May 2018.
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP): Withdrawn via executive order in January 2017.
  • UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Trump ordered the U.S. withdrawal from the founding 1992 climate treaty.
  • Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: The U.S. exited this Cold War-era arms control treaty with Russia in August 2019.
  • Open Skies Treaty: Withdrawn in November 2020.
  • World Health Organization (WHO): Initiated withdrawal in 2020 and executed withdrawal actions again during his second term.
  • UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) & UNESCO: Withdrawn during his first presidency.
  • Global Compact for Migration: Withdrawn in December 2017.

Standing alone we are much weaker than when standing together with friends.

Interest rates: While Trump’s threats to the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates reflects a complete misunderstanding of the forces in play and the Trump administration’s perverse impact on them, I have confidence in the integrity of Kevin Warsh and expect the Fed to raise its policy rate next week in keeping with its commitment to lower inflation to 2%. https://wcoats.blog/2026/08/29/inflation/

Corruption: Trump’s wealth increased $3 to $4 billion dollars during his second term so far. Corruption? No comment. “Trump has pledged a $5,000 dividend to every American adult if Republicans retain control of Congress in November’s midterm elections, prompting questions about how the benefit would work, whether it is legal and where the funds would come from.” Washington Post 9/10/2026. Amazingly Trump publicly proclaims this bribery.

The Washington Post reported on 9/12/2026:

“Democrats hope to retake control of the House, and to use that power to probe Trump’s business ventures, legal maneuvers and policies…. ‘There’s so much corruption and grift that it’s going to take the entire House on the Democratic side to do investigations appropriately,’ Rep. Robert Garcia (D-California), who would probably lead investigations as chair the Oversight Committee in a Democratic-held House….

“Trump family enrichment…

“Handouts to supporters…

“Construction projects…

“Immigration enforcement…

“Prosecutions of Trump’s political enemies…

“Institutional pressure campaigns.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/09/12/house-democrats-plan-sweeping-trump-investigations-if-they-win-november

It goes without saying that Trump does not support many of the US Constitution based principles I support. If I am right, as I am sure I am, that adhering to the principles of our Constitution is an important part of the foundation of our flourishing, Trump’s abuses of those principles will have the opposite effect. His disregard for the rule of law, his expansion of the powers of government to coerce us, and his disregard and flaunting international agreements and relationships will turn the US into a society of uncertain rights heading in uncertain directions depending on who is leading it at the time.

To give Tom Friedman the last word from his NYT article sited above:

“A year ago, I heard one of our former presidents privately observe that we can survive Trump’s second term as long as our institutions remain intact. Well, unfortunately, they have not. Who would argue today that the Justice Department, which has been turned into a personal legal weapon of the president, is intact, that the Department of Health and Human Services is intact, that the Pentagon is intact, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is intact or that the Federal Communications Commission, which is now run by a Trump-appointed hack who acts as combined government censor and minister of propaganda, is intact?”

LGBT literature

Should young teenagers be exposed to gay literature?  Should such books be banned from schools? The answer given to these questions depends, I am convinced, on whether the answerer believes that sexuality is God/genetically given or freely chosen by each of us. In the latter case some fear that novels that make gay life seem OK might lure some kids to choose it.

As a gay man myself, I wonder if those worried that being exposed to homosexual literature will find it so attractive and enticing that the young reader will be drawn (recruited) into such activities, are not repressed homosexuals themselves. Homosextuality is not something we choose. For most of us it is something we resisted and fought accepting. Who could possible think that being gay is more attractive than being a normal straight family member, though in these more enlighten and tolerant days it is much easier to accept being gay than when I struggled with it.

Homosexuality is God (nature) given. We can try to deny it, but we cannot make it go away. A proper understanding of this unchangeable fact is essential to living the happy and fulfilling lives each of us deserves. Literature that treats the subject and especially literature that depicts gay life as acceptable and compatible with happiness and success in life is an important source of information for those of us (every teenager) trying to understand and sort out who we are and where we want to go. Fortunately, movies and TV shows these days generally do a very good job of treating gay characters like any others. When I began to sense and struggle with my sexual attraction to men, the only such people I had ever heard of were child molesters who were run out of town. I was terrified by what I felt.

We live in a much better time (at least with regard to this topic). We often tell ourselves that God made us homosexual, but we chose to be gay. The sooner kids are exposed to the relevant literature the better for all of us.

Since writing the above, the US Supreme Court has ruled against a Colorado law that bans the discredited practice of advocating conversion therapy on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment protection of free speech. Though as I argued above, conversion therapy (turning a gay person into a heterosexual) certainly has been discredited, I agree with the almost unanimous Court decision. The First Amendment also protects my right to attack and condemn conversion therapy, and the freely open public debate about it is by far the best and ultimately most convincing way to expose its falsity.

This morning the Washington Post ran this story of a wise and brave librarian.

Tenn. library director fired over refusal to move LGBTQ+ books to adult section

A county board near Nashville voted to dismiss Luanne James, who said she stands by her decision, in the latest clash in a national debate over access to books.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/04/02/library-director-fired-lgbtq-books-tennessee/

FIRE: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

“Free Speech Makes Free People

“The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s mission is to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty…. FIRE defends and promotes the value of free speech for all Americans in our courtrooms, on our campuses, and in our culture.”   “F.I.R.E.”

The above words headline FIRE’s website and purpose. Free speech is so fundamental and essential to the vibrancy and health of American society that I have blogged in its defense on many occasions and will not repeat those argues here: “Freedom of speech-final thoughts for a while at least”   “Do we really need free speech”  It should not surprise you that I was on the Free Speech Council at the U of Cal Berkeley in 1964  “Joan Baez”

Attacks have come from both sides of the political spectrum, but the current risks are from the MAGA right and the Jewish lobby. 

In commenting on the Palestinian-Israeli wars, criticism of Israel’s vicious attacks on Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon and now Syria have too often led to University repression of speech if it is critical of Israel and even firing of staff. “The alternative to war”   “Palestine”  Pro Palestinian demonstrators have too often been suppressed.

The US government has increasingly flexed its muscle to silence criticism as well. A Free Press headline claimed: “A Mom Asked for Public School Board Records. They Charged Her $33 Million.”  Free Press: “Mom asks for public school records”

But serious concerns are being raised by President elect Donald Trump’s actions to punish or silence opponents. Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to lead the FBI, stated last year that:

 “’We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,’ Patel said. The same applies for supposed ‘conspirators’ inside the federal government, he said.”  AP “FBI Trump Patel”

In an equally, if not more, disturbing attack on the press “Trump filed the suit in March, days after Stephanopoulos said multiple times in an interview with Rep. Nancy Mace (R., S.C.) on ABC’s Sunday morning news show “This Week” that Trump had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. A federal jury determined he was liable for sexual abuse, but not rape.”  Rather than correct its minor misstatement, Disney, the owner of ABC News, settled out of court and agree to pay $15 million to Trump’s future presidential foundation and museum, and $1 million in legal fees to Trump’s lawyer. WSJ: “Disney Trump lawsuit with ABC News” The dampening impact on press reporting is huge.

The following is not from the Onion:

 “The MAGA cult leader took time out of his very busy presidential transition schedule to sue a pollster and newspaper in Des Moines, Iowa, for a poll he didn’t like prior to the election. Seriously. Trump’s vindictiveness has very little to due with polling in Iowa, of course. These actions are designed to scare the mainstream media into obsequence when his wrecking ball of second term actually gets under way”  USA Today: “Trump sues Des Moines Register over election poll”

While this may look like a joke, its dampening impact on free speech is serious and we must fight it.

The first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that:

“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.”

America’s tradition of free speech extends far beyond these legal protections from government. It embodies a tradition of open (and hopefully civil) public debate and expression of our view. We must defend it.

Happy Birthday to me

Today I have lived for 82 years (29,848 days plus however many leap year days there have been). So please indulge my reflections on that life.  If you are really interested in more details, you can read my Autobiography being assembled by my friend Odell Huff on Kindle books (probably available in July). And or you can read any or all of my five travel books on my work in Afghanistan, Bosnia, FSU, Iraq, Kosovo, and Palestine, https://www.amazon.com/s?k=warren+coats&i=digital-text&crid=WKE7LWMI6LNS&sprefix=warren+coats%2Cdigital-text%2C74&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_1_12  

It was certainly action packed (from a year in Germany as an high school exchange student, a member of the UC Berkeley Free Speech Movement council in 1964, marriage to Louise Wilkinson while teaching at the U of Hawaii, a Ph.D. from U of Chicago under Milton Friedman, Assistant Prof at UVA, birth of my son and daughter, 26 years at the International Monetary Fund during which I divorced Louise and married Ito Briones and led technical assistance missions to the central banks of over 20 countries). The teacher in me prodded me to share my economic and political thoughts with you in hundreds of blogs https://wcoats.blog/

I genuinely cared about trying to make the world a better place. In some ways it is but in many it is not. America’s role in the world has peaked and is in decline.  Others have tired of being pushed around by a bully who doesn’t pay that much attention to their interests. Sadly, most of the countries I worked in are no better off. On the other hand, the way God made me is now more widely accepted as OK and I have been able to married Ito. What concerns me most today is the lack of civil discourse and the mutual understanding discourse facilitates. Too often we consider those we disagree with bad rather than just wrong, which undermines rather than promotes understanding and cooperation.

But the real reason I, and people my age are generally happier than our younger friends, is, I think, because we have let go and stopped worrying about what we should do next. The fight for us is over (not that we don’t care anymore, but that we know we can no longer do anything about it). So, the political prospects for the next election, the attacks on free speech in the US, the shrinking of the free trade on which our prosperity has depended, the new holocaust in Gaza, while saddening events, wash over us without much personal pain.

What we have and can enjoy are wonderful and entertaining friends with whom we can visit, and dine and chat. Thank you all.

Effective protest

In the face of rising arrests on university campuses of protesters against Israel’s war in Gaza and West Bank, I will explore what forms of protest are proper and effective. I will not address the merits of one view or another as I have already done so in several earlier blogs. I support the measures that will best achieve Israel’s security and prosperity as well as those measures that will best achieve Palestine’s security and prosperity. The two are inseparable.  https://wcoats.blog/2023/10/10/israel-and-the-wbgs-next-steps/

As with international relations more generally, diplomacy is preferred and invariably more successful in the long run to war. War should be the absolute last resort when every effort at diplomacy has failed, if at all.

What does this mean for the war in Gaza and between Israel and its West Bank and Gaza Strip (WBGS) neighbors more generally? Diplomacy begins with correctly understanding the views of the other side. It involves talking with each other. American University protests are largely by students protesting Israel’s behavior vis a vis Hamas and more broadly its Palestinian neighbors.

“The students are protesting against Israel’s actions in the war with Hamas. The Columbia University Apartheid Divest coalition, which consists of more than 100 student groups, is calling for the university to financially divest from companies and institutions that ‘profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide and occupation in Palestine’…. Protesters camping on the university lawn say they believe the war in Gaza amounts to ‘genocide’ of Palestinians….

“’I’m here continuing the Jewish tradition of standing against oppression and injustice, especially as we approach Passover, a holiday that celebrates our own liberation and commits us to fighting for everyone else’s,’ the Jewish Voices for Peace at Columbia said in an online statement.”  https://abcnews.go.com/US/columbia-university-student-protests-israel-gaza-war-continue/story?id=109493377

These protestors clearly have something to discuss with U of Columbia’s Administration. I have no idea whether they are or not. Peaceful public demonstrations of support for demands to impress the other side with the existence of broad support is certainly an appropriate and often effective part of pressing demands. Public debate of the pros and cons of these demands, as guaranteed by our First Amendment right to free speech, can be a powerful way to refine demands and to educate the public of their merits.

But our freedom of speech has limits. We may not yell “Fire” in a theater in which there is no fire. We may not credibly threaten physical harm as in “Kill the Jews.”  On the other hand, the charge that damning the Israeli government for its war in Gaza (or any other unwanted policy) is antisemitic is as wrong as charging me with anti-Americanism for damning some of President Biden’s policies (such as using my tax money to provide the Israeli army with weapons with which they are killing women and children in Gaza).

But many protestors at Columbia U sat up tents on the campus in violation of university rules and on April 18th more than 100 of them were arrested and removed from the campus. The right to free speech is not the right to violate the law and Universities (or other property owners) have the right to remove violators. The boundaries for the proper right to free speech are set out in the following article by FIRE’s President Greg Lukianoff https://greglukianoff.substack.com/p/hypocrisy-projection-civil-disobedience?r=1n8osb&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

When protestors feel so strongly about an issue that they knowingly break the law to dramatize their position, they must expect and accept the legal consequences. But this is the equivalent of going to war when the prospects for diplomacy have been exhausted. An extreme example was the self-immolation of US Airforce officer, Aaron Bushnell, in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. “He was a 25-year-old serviceman who, on February 25, 2024, set himself on fire as a form of protest against what he described as the experiences of Palestinians at the hands of their colonizers and declared that he would no longer be complicit in genocide.” Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell – Wikipedia

Today’s student protests, most of which have been peaceful and legal, are often compared to the Free Speech Movement at the University of California, Berkeley in 1964, in which I participated. Traditionally, meaning at least during the time I was a student there, we sat up our recruiting tables along Bancroft Avenue near its intersection with Telegraph Avenue just outside the campus.

On September 14, 1964, Dean of Students Katherine Towle “announced that existing University regulations prohibiting advocacy of political causes or candidates, signing of members, and collection of funds by student organizations at Bancroft and Telegraph would henceforth be ”strictly enforced.” FSM Leaflet: Chronicle of the Free Speech Controversy (fsm-a.org)

We, and by we I mean students across the entire political spectrum, protested. Within a week most all student groups, including the University Young Republicans of which I was President, loosely organized into a United Front for presenting our “demands” to the Dean.

On September 27, 1964, the United Front held an all-night vigil on the steps of Sproul Hall. These steps, which became a major staging place for Free Speech Movement (FSM) speeches and demonstrations, are midway between the Telegraph and Bancroft Avenue intersection and Sather Gate. On September, 30 five students who refused to remove their card table were indefinitely suspended from the University. The next day, October 1, during a rally in front of Sproul Hall, Jack Weinberg was arrested for refusing to leave his CORE table. When he was put into a police car, students immediately surrounded it and prevented it from leaving as students began to speak to the crowd from the roof of the police car and the Sproul Hall steps. The next day the student crowd grew to 3,000 and the Alameda Country police force had grown to 500.

On October 3, leaders of Berkeley’s political organizations met on the Sproul Hall steps and formed the Free Speech Movement. Each group had a member on its council and thus I was a member of the FSM Council by virtue of being President of the University YRs. Days of speeches on these steps followed. On one occasion my address to the crowd followed that of Mario Savio the de facto leader of the FSM. Mario was an inspirational speaker and never called for violence. I also stressed the importance of peaceful discussions with the University administration aimed at restoring our traditional political activities on Bancroft.

It should not be surprising that with such a diversity of members on the FSM Council views differed on how to proceed. An important misunderstanding, which persists in the general public to this day, was that Dean Towle’s banning of political activity was not actually a reference to campus activities. The Telegraph and Bancroft location of our club tables was off the campus on city territory and the city had complained to the University that it had not approved such use of its sidewalks.

When control of the FSM Council was taken over by the radical left, Marxist faction, led by Bettina Aptheker, I resigned and joined with the presidents of four other groups genuinely fighting (peacefully) for free speech on campus to help steer student protest toward genuine free speech. It was clear from Bettina’s speeches that she wanted to steer the movement toward violence. Our small group consisted of the presidents of the University Conservatives, University Young Democrats, Young Peoples Socialist League, Young Socialists and myself. We meet at 2:00 am every few days in the office of Professor Seymour Lipset because the YPSL president was his research assistant and had a key to Lipset’s office. Our goal was to represent to the University administration the broader student body commitment to genuine free speech and the exchange of different ideas.

December 2, two to three thousand students peaceably occupied Sproul Hall sitting in for two days. Mario Savio led the occupation with the following words:

“There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Now, no more talking. We’re going to march in singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’” 

And Joan Baez stood there singing it as they walked in. In the early hours of December 4 Alameda police carried out and arrested 800 students.

For some reason our group of five moderate left and right wing groups were never interested in meeting with the Chancellor of the Berkeley campus, Edward Strong. Clark Kerr was the president of the whole university system and we ultimately met with him and made our case that his administration had not done a very sensible thing in clamping down on all of our traditional political activities. We argued that we thought there was a way of both satisfying the law and re-establishing our tradition of open, free speech that would satisfy everybody except Bettina Aptheker. Happily, this is what happened, in part by clarifying that student activities needed to be on the campus and not on the streets of Berkeley.

Sadly, we too often choose war when diplomacy would produce a better outcome.

One of our Strengths

Two sights/thoughts are sure to bring tears to my eyes. One is seeing a child loose hope for its future. Almost nothing is sadder. The other is seeing people fighting for causes they believe in to help another person or society more generally. These happy tears are a response to the goodness in people.

But not everyone shares the same view of what the right cause is. Our founding fathers had the great wisdom to know that only by confronting the arguments for opposing views could we hope to find common ground or at least to understand and respect other views even if we did not share them and thus live peacefully together. So, in the very first Amendment to our constitutions (the Bill of Rights) they established that:

“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.”

We seem to be coming out of the sad generation over protected by “helicopter moms” who were so afraid of hearing something they might disagree with that they tried to ban such speech or demonstrations in direct violation of our Constitution. But the dangerous and pathetic Woke generation seems to be passing. The sharply different views over the tragic war in Israel and Palestine are testing our commitment to the wisdom of free speech and step by step that wisdom seems to be winning.

While the Millennials (the scardicat, afraid of their shadows generation mom kept from developing protective skins) tried to shut down and prevent encounters (speeches, demonstrations, etc.) that might offend their views (sought “safe spaces”), Gen Z seems to be reverting to the openness and search for the truth championed by our founding fathers.

There have always been some dissenters in every generation. Sadly a few people are just nasty (redneck fascist types). It’s hard for me to know how to characterize an adult like Governor DeSantis who cancels the self-governance contract with Disneyland and ordered the ban of the pro-Palestinian student group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) from university campuses in Florida, because he doesn’t like what they are saying. “A Land of Immigrants”

We should go out of our way to hear views we might disagree with, but to be construction we should urge our “opponents” to debate politely, to be civil, and do so ourselves.  Name calling, for example calling criticism of the Israeli government “antisemitism,” does not contribute to better mutual understanding of difficult issues. Our demonstrations should always be peaceful. We have work to do on those fronts, but the urge to ban seems to be retreating. The following article about the evolving situation of opposing views on the Israeli/Hamas/Gaza wars is encouraging to me and well worth reading. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-war-facing-suspension-mit-university-students-continue-pro-palestine-advocacy

Free to Speak

I disagree with many of the claims and proposals made by Critical Race Theorists. But the best way to challenge it are with public debt. Hiding it away violates our constitutional protection of free speech and will not be successful in exposing its errors. I remember being surprised and enlightened by reading “Black Like Me” years ago. It recounts the experiences of a white man who had turned his skin black traveling in the South as a black man (or as a negro as polite people said in those days). Did the shock harm me? Hardly. The lack of challenges to our ideas turns us to mush. https://wapo.st/3sYWltz

Happily, some, like FIRE, are fighting back. One excellent presentation of the value and importance of free speech and of civilly speaking up to defend what we believe and to listening to what others believe by the producers of earlier “Free to Choose” series, can be seen on PBS starting Oct 1.   “Free to Speak”  I urge you to watch it.

Social Media and Fake News

People’s political, cultural, and religious views can be partitioned by differing attitudes and preferences. One of these is whether a person looks first to the government or to themselves to solve their problems. Any society requires both, but where do you look first?

An important debate is currently raging over what to do about misinformation and fake news spread on social media. I have shared my views earlier that the rules for what can be posted and shared on a social media platform should be largely up to Facebook, Twitter, etc. “Social media and false information”  But what would we like them to do to solve this problem?

The right to state and promote any point of view should be defended at all costs. But what about lies, deliberately invented or foolishly believed and propagated? The government (ours or anyone else’s) is the last place to empower to determine what is true or not. I am also not thrilled at the idea of Facebook, etc., making such determinations. “What to do with social media?”  As one of those who look first to myself and my neighbors for help with problems, in this short note I want to put the spotlight on what can and should be done to better enable each of us individually to evaluate the accuracy of the information we read and especially information we might chose to pass on.

I spotlight (no more than that here) three areas. The first is education. Schools should provide our children with the critical thinking tools to evaluate the accuracy of the information we are reading or hearing. I don’t think that the importance of this can be over emphasized.

The second area is the importance of news reporting standards and related institutions that promote those standards and the importance of choosing information sources that we can trust. Jonathan Rauch has a very useful discussion of these points in The Constitution of Knowledge: a defense of truth.  “The sources of trust”

The third area is what social media itself does. It can best help our individual assessments of truth by supplementing posts with information on their source and perhaps with warnings of possible inaccuracy with links to other sources.  It is better for business for social media platforms to detect and block trolls and robo accounts and they should certainly be encouraged to do so. But they should not block former Presidents of the U.S. from saying what they want despite a well documented history of lying. They should and do have the right to do so, though in our traditional commitment to free speech, they should not do so. The government might require platforms to disclose their algorithms for how they direct traffic in order to benefit from public discussion of such internal rules. Taking down posts should be a rare last resort.

In short, we need better training in how to evaluate information however we encounter it. And the social media platforms should be as transparent about what is posted there and what is done with it as possible.

With that we more or less get what we deserve.

Who is to blame?

Did you know that the first Covid-19 vaccine shot reduces your body’s ability to produce white blood cells by 50% and the second shot reduces it by an additional 25%? For good measure these shots contain poisonous ingredients as well.  Did you know that “former” President Trump actually won the 2020 election? Or that former President Donald Trump’s grandfather was, “a pimp and tax evader,” and that his father was a member of the KKK. Or that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed a ban on motorcycles, and that House speaker Nancy Pelosi was diverting Social Security funding for the Trump impeachment inquiry. None of these claims are true but they were viewed and often believed by millions of Americans, often on Facebook.

Granted that it is often hard to know who or what to believe, many of these claims don’t pass the laugh test (though they are rarely funny). A debate is now underway in the U.S. over whether social media should do more to weed out such lies. (“What to do with social media”) While the best answer to this dilemma probably requires balancing several approaches, I want to focus on our own responsibility vs the government’s to sort out the “truth”. To what extent should we rely on protection by government (forgive me for referring to it as “Big Brother”) or on our own efforts to identify reliable (trusted) sources of information (“Trust”) and to develop the capacity to spot obvious or likely lies.  Where do we want the dividing line between what we do for ourselves and what we want the government to do for us?

Over the years I have defended free speech as the best way to challenge bad ideas. “Do we really need free speech”  So naturally I resist giving the government much of a roll in protecting us from offensive, or “wrong” speech. Controversies over vaccines, facemasks, climate change, oil pipelines, etc. often involve serious claims on each side that are best tested in open debate.  In my view, Facebook and other social media platforms should be free to set their own rules and standards for posts. According to The Economist “Nick Clegg, Facebook’s vice-president of policy and global affairs,… pointed out that last year the company removed 30m posts that violated its policies on terrorism and 19m posts that crossed company lines for inciting hatred.” “Facebook flounders in the court of public opinion” Their users can decide whether they agree or disagree with these rules and either stay or opt out of the social platform.

But we have an interest in and responsibility to evaluate the many claims that come our way. We can do a better job of providing our children with the tools for spotting fake or potentially fake information. Along with civics and home economics (how to cook etc.) that are (or should be) taught in high school, students should be taught how to spot and challenge highly improbably statements.

For example, it does not require any medical knowledge at all to spot the vaccine video referred to above as a fake. The medical “expert” who presents her shocking claims is anonymous, as are her credentials and medical affiliations. The vaccine she reports on and claims will kill 20 to 30% of those who take it is unnamed. All the animals it was tested on died, she said. While many of us have lost confidence in the veracity of the information provided by the Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control (drugs might be approved too slowly or too quickly, etc.) none of us would (or at least should) believe that they would approve a vaccine with the properties alleged in the video.

I have seen much better produced videos the were totally fabricated stories for reasons I find hard to understand (we shouldn’t blame Russia for everything). One very well done and potentially convincing video claimed that no plane actually crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11. Any sensible person should have doubts about claims that are so directly contradicted by pictures and reports to the contrary. But I must admit that my rejection of its big lie was fortified by the fact that at that time I lived next to the Pentagon and saw the damage to the building, and I witnessed the wreckage of the plane laid out for months in the Pentagon parking lot. I also knew a woman who died in that plane.

More could be done by social media platforms to flag potential misinformation, but it should not be censored by the government. We should strengthen our personal capacity to evaluate propaganda but most importantly we need to carefully establish news sources that we trust. Knowing that the Facebooks of the world feed us what they think we like, thus creating an information bubble, we should make the effort to check other sources for their views. We have not flourished as a nation because we turned over our care to the government even if it must provide a critical foundation for our security and interactions.