Free speech and universities

 At Stanford, recent event are helping us remember that our speech policy is the First Amendment.

That hasn't always been front of mind at Stanford, and now that it is, it is still distressing to see a student wearing a Hamas headband on campus, but it's worth remembering that freedom of speech is important, and important at universities. (The First Amendment is generally understood to also imply freedom of association, so you should feel free not to hire a Hamas supporter who graduates from Stanford.)

Here's the First Amendment:

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.

Because the First Amendment only restricts government from abridging the freedom of speech, private universities (although not public ones) are entitled to have more restrictive speech codes.  But in California, the 1992 Leonard Law forbids private secular universities from restricting student speech  protected by the First Amendment.

In 1994, a court ruled (in the case of Corry v. Stanford) that a Stanford prohibition of certain "fighting words" when addressed to individuals violated the Leonard Law. Stanford's then president, Gerhard Casper, subsequently addressed the faculty senate, giving his thoughts on speech at a university:

Statement on Corry vs. Stanford University (by Gerhard Casper)

Here are his concluding sentences:

"Harassment, threats or intimidation continue to be unacceptable. Should they go beyond what is protected by law, we will invoke university disciplinary procedures. Otherwise, we shall continue to do what we always have done. We shall counter prejudice with reason. The work of reason is hard work, as is the work of building and maintaining a great private university. I invite all faculty, students and staff to continue the work of reason."

Blasphemy in Pakistan

 How to strengthen a ban that already allows the death penalty for repugnant speech?  The NYT has the story:

Pakistan Strengthens Already Harsh Laws Against Blasphemy. Insulting Islam or its founder is already a capital offense, but now those who insult people connected to the Prophet Muhammad could get prison time. By Salman Masood

"Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, which can already mean death for those deemed to have insulted Islam or the Prophet Muhammad, can now also be used to punish anyone convicted of insulting people who were connected to him.

"The move this week by Parliament to further strengthen the nation’s strict blasphemy laws, which are often used to settle personal scores or persecute minorities, has raised concerns among rights activists about the prospect of an increase in such persecution, particularly of religious minorities, including Christians.

...

"Those convicted of insulting the Prophet Muhammad’s wives, companions or close relatives will now face 10 years in prison, a sentence that can be extended to life, along with a fine of 1 million rupees, roughly $4,500. It also makes the charge of blasphemy an offense for which bail is not possible.

...

"Taking a stand on the issue can also be dangerous, as the assassination of two senior politicians more than a decade ago made clear. In 2011, Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab Province, was fatally shot by one of his own bodyguards. Mr. Taseer had been an outspoken opponent of the blasphemy laws and had campaigned for the release of Asia Bibi, a Christian convicted of insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Shahbaz Bhatti, a federal minister and a Christian who had also opposed the death sentence imposed on Ms. Bibi, was fatally shot the same year."

Repugnant and deleted blog posts: AI and the Justice Stewart test

 As someone who sometimes writes and speaks about repugnant transactions and controversial markets, I'm aware that people may object not only to the things I write about, but also to the fact that I write about them. So I was surprised but not shocked when I got a notice earlier this week that two of my blog posts had been deleted by Google, which runs the site that hosts this blog.  And another two were put behind a warning that readers have to acknowledge before being allowed to read them.

The emails had a link at which I could request that the deletions be reviewed, and my two deleted posts were promptly restored.  But which posts were deleted, by what I assume was an algorithm?

Here are the subject lines from the two emails about deleted posts (and the now restored posts themselves):

Your post titled "NY Times debate: Is Prostitution Safer when It's Legal?" has been deleted

Sunday, May 20, 2012

NY Times debate: Is Prostitution Safer when It's Legal?

and

Your post titled "Legal prostitution and crime in the Netherlands" has been deleted

Thursday, November 9, 2017

Legal prostitution and crime in the Netherlands

So I guess the word "prostitution" plays a role in the decision to delete these two posts, but that can't be the whole story, since I now have about 80 posts that I labeled as concerning prostitution, at least in part. (To put things in perspective, I have well over a thousand posts labeled as concerning 'repugnance'.) Also, the algorithm that deleted them is probably new, since the posts themselves were old but were only deleted and then restored this week.

The two  (also old) posts  that were put behind an "adult" warning screen also seem to have now been released from this distinction: here are the email headings and posts, which you can once again see without certifying your adult status:

Your post titled "Ethnic dating sites" has been put behind a warning for readers

Friday, September 3, 2010

Ethnic dating sites

and

Your post titled "Markets for adult entertainments" has been put behind a warning for readers

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Markets for adult entertainments

So algorithms searching for inappropriate content (even those employed by the leader in algorithmic search) still fall short of Justice Stewart's famous 1964 declaration about pornography, that it was difficult to define, but "I know it when I see it." 

***********

Earlier related post:

Monday, October 19, 2020

Censoring repugnant words by algorithm

Cops and comedy: repugnant speech

 The Guardian has a story about comedians who have been accused or charged with violating laws because of their acts. Recent cases involve jokes that are adjacent to pornography or hate speech, but the article reminds us that comedy and free speech have sometimes come into conflict for a long time.

Arrest that joke! A history of gags so offensive that punters called the cops  by Brian Logan

"Comedy’s defining brushes with the law, in the 1960s and 70s, also concerned indecency. Standup’s self-image has deep roots in the prosecutions of the American comics Lenny Bruce and George Carlin. Fifties hepcat and standup trailblazer Bruce was repeatedly arrested and tried for obscenity – or, in the words of his prosecutor during a 1964 trial, for his “nauseating word pictures interspersed with all the three- and four-letter words and more acrid 10- and 12-letter ones, spewed directly at the audience”. Bruce was found guilty and died – of a drugs overdose – while on parole pending his appeal.

"Carlin’s later Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television riff led to a legal fight between the Federal Communications Commission and a radio broadcaster that aired the routine – a case that went to the Supreme Court. “FCC v Pacifica,” wrote Carlin in his autobiography, “became a standard case to teach in communications classes and law schools. I take perverse pride in that. I’m actually a footnote to the judicial history of America.” The court ruled he was being indecent, but not obscene."

Repugnant speech: the NYT and the "N word"

 NPR has the story:

Two Prominent 'New York Times' Journalists Depart Over Past Behavior  by David Folkenflik   February 6

"Two widely heralded journalists for The New York Times departed the paper Friday after unrelated episodes of their past behavior received sharp new scrutiny from other media outlets, readers and colleagues.

"Donald McNeil Jr., recognized as one of the nation's leading reporters on COVID-19, left after fallout from the disclosure in The Daily Beast that he had used a racial slur during a New York Times-sponsored trip for high school students. The revelation of his use of the N-word, which he said came in response to a student's query about the appropriateness of the word in a young friend's video, stirred a formal protest among more than 100 of his peers in the newsroom.

...

"In his parting letter to colleagues, McNeil said he had used a racial slur in a context that he had thought defensible at the time, but now realizes was not.

"I was asked at dinner by a student whether I thought a classmate of hers should have been suspended for a video she had made as a 12-year-old in which she used a racial slur. To understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title. In asking the question, I used the slur itself.

...

"In a joint letter to the newsroom, Baquet and Kahn said, "We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent." They pledged to better define and enforce guidelines on workplace behavior, including "red-line issues on racist language."

Mike Luca on social media bans

 Mike Luca writes, in Wired, about social media bans as part of their design.

Social Media Bans Are Really, Actually, Shockingly Common--Booting Trump didn’t set a precedent. From Yelp to Uber to Airbnb, platforms regularly ban users and content, but too often behind the scenes.

"DONALD TRUMP’S ACCOUNTS have been banned on Twitter, Facebook, and a host of other platforms. Every last one of @realdonaldtrump’s 47,000 tweets vanished from the site in an instant, from the birther lies and election conspiracy theories to the 2016 taco bowl tweet. In an explanatory blog post, the company cited the attack on the Capitol and “the risk of further incitement of violence” that might occur by permitting further Trump tweets. His multiplatform removal has drawn cheers from many, as well as the ire of more than a few Trump supporters. The bans have also raised concerns that the companies had gone too far in exercising their power to shape what users see.

...

"To combat review fraud, Yelp and other platforms flag reviews they deem spammy or objectionable and remove them from the main listings of the page. Yelp puts these into a section labeled “not currently recommended,” where they are not factored into the ratings you see on a business’s page. The goal of approaches like this is to make sure people can trust the content they do see.

...

"Ultimately, removing content can be valuable for users. People need to feel safe in order to participate in markets. And, it can be hard to trust review websites riddled with fake reviews, housing rental websites rife with racial discrimination, and social media platforms that are megaphones of misinformation. Removing bad content can create healthier platforms in the long run. There is a moral case for banning the president. There is also a business case."

Censoring repugnant words by algorithm

 Some people like to say things that other people think they shouldn't say.  In the age of the internet, politeness can be (somewhat) automated, by banning certain words.  But of course, words have contexts. Here's a funny story from the Guardian:

Overzealous profanity filter bans paleontologists from talking about bones--A virtual conference was thrown into confusion when the platform hosting the event came with a pre-packaged ‘naughty word’ censor by Poppy Noor.

"Participants in a virtual paleontology session found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place last week, when a profanity filter prevented them from using certain words – such as bone, pubic, stream and, er, beaver – during an online conference.

"The US-based Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) held its annual meeting virtually this year due to the pandemic, but soon found its audience stifled when they tried to use particular words.

"Convey Services, which was was handling the conference, used a “naughty-word filter,” for the conference, outlawing a pre-selected list of words.

"“Words like ‘bone’, ‘pubic’, and ‘stream’ are frankly ridiculous to ban in a field where we regularly find pubic bones in streams,” said Brigid Christison, a master’s student in biology attending the event

...

"Some discovered bias in the algorithm, too. Jack Tseng, a vertebrate paleontologist from the University of Berkley pointed out that the filter had banned the common surname Wang but not Johnson – even though both are frequently used as slang words to describe a man’s genitals."

********

Here's Dr. Tseng's tweet:

Z. Jack Tseng, @Tseng_ZJ

"Wang" is banned but not "Johnson" (both used as slangs). This western-centric filter erasing the surname of 90+ million Chinese but not <2 million people of European descent is unexpectedly on brand for 2020,  ! My PhD advisor is X. **** by the way. "

**********

Previous related posts:

Monday, September 12, 2016 Repugnant language: some reflections on profanity

 

Friday, August 7, 2015 You can't say that! Repugnant words

HT: Muriel Niederle

FUCT up, censorship down in Supreme Court trademark decision

 The WSJ has the story:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks
The decision is a win for California clothing designer’s streetwear brand, FUCT

"The government can’t reject trademarks it deems immoral or scandalous, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

“The First Amendment does not allow the government to penalize views just because many people, whether rightly or wrongly, see them as offensive,” Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote for the court, said from the bench.

"Two years ago, the court struck down a related provision denying registration to disparaging trademarks, which the government had invoked to cancel the Washington Redskins professional football team’s trademark and to reject an application from the Slants, an Asian-American rock band. The same rationale, said Justice Kagan, required invalidation of the restriction on immoral or scandalous marks: The 1946 trademark law, the Lanham Act, was unconstitutional to the extent it “disfavors certain ideas.”

***************

Earlier related posts:

Sunday, February 19, 2017

Offensive trademarks

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

F.C.C. Indecency Policy Rejected on Appeal

Offensive trademarks

Can repugnant speech also be intellectual property? The Supreme Court has a case that touches on this. The NY Times has this recent story: Justices Appear Willing to Protect Offensive Trademarks

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared deeply skeptical about the constitutionality of a federal law that denies protection to disparaging trademarks. Almost every member of the court indicated that the law was hard to reconcile with the First Amendment.

The court’s decision in the case, concerning an Asian-American dance-rock band called the Slants, will probably also effectively resolve a separate one in favor of the Washington Redskins football team.

The law denies federal trademark protection to messages that may disparage people, living or dead, along with “institutions, beliefs or national symbols.”

Malcolm L. Stewart, a deputy solicitor general, said the trademark law does not bar any speech, as the Slants remain free to continue to use their name. The law “places a reasonable limit on access to a government program rather than a restriction on speech,” he said, and so “does not violate the First Amendment.”

Continue reading the main story

But Justice Elena Kagan said that even government programs may not discriminate based on speakers’ viewpoints.

“The point is that I can say good things about something, but I can’t say bad things about something,” she said of the law. “And I would have thought that that was a fairly classic case of viewpoint discrimination.” Viewpoint discrimination by the government, the Supreme Court has said, is presumptively unconstitutional.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the law interfered with free expression.

“We have a culture in which we have T-shirts and logos and rock bands and so forth that are expressing a point of view,” he said. “They are using the market to express views.”

The marketplace for ideas: Academic Freedom and Anti-Semitism (and calls to boycott Israel)

In January, Larry Summers gave a speech at the Center for Law and Liberty at Columbia University Law School, titled Academic Freedom and Anti-Semitism. It is interesting not just for how he reflects on his statements on the subject when he was President of Harvard (he called proposed boycotts of Israel "anti-Semitic in effect if not intent"), but is also helpful for thinking about the once-again resurgent movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel and companies doing business there.

President Hennessy of Stanford recently spoke to the faculty Senate following a student Senate (re)vote that urged Stanford to divest from companies "facilitating State repression against Palestinians," with comments that clarified Stanford's policy (on boycotts and divestment generally, not on anti-Semitism in particular).

Following the student vote, I signed an online petition called Reject Stanford Divestment from Israel.  I recently signed another, and supported a third which isn't yet on the web. The letters are signed by people with a variety of positions on  Israeli policies and politics, but all disturbed by the singular obsession with Israel expressed by movements to boycott and divest from it.

I'm a reluctant signer of letters in general, and I imagine that everyone who signs a joint letter might have written with different wording or emphasis if they were writing on their own. But that didn't stop me from adding my name to these, under the circumstances.

Here's a Stanford Daily story on that student senate vote: Senate reverses divestment vote, passes resolution

As the story notes, we're not talking about a big vote: "The re-vote saw 10 Senators vote in favor of the bill, while four voted against and one Senator abstained."

But the world remains a dangerous place: here's a statement from a consortium of California Jewish community organizations, focusing in part on the recent murders in France and Denmark: Against the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism

That statement concludes with this:
"History has shown that whenever one group is attacked, others are inevitably targeted as well. Let us stand together against all forms of hate and racism."
*************

Update: From the NY Times, March 5 2015--In U.C.L.A. Debate Over Jewish Student, Echoes on Campus of Old Biases, reports on a UCLA undergrad, interviewing for student government position, being initally voted down after being asked "“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” ...“how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

Here's a March 4 story on the anti-divestment letter from the Stanford Daily: http://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/03/04/faculty-members-send-letter-to-apirl-opposing-divestment/