





previous entry | main | next entry









"Shut up," the TSA explained. The TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) has decided to block -- as "inappropriate for government access" -- all Internet websites which contain "controversial opinion." I have no idea whether that would include ClassicalValues.com. Are the opinions here controversial? What does that mean? An opinion that is controversial? Or an opinion about a controversial issue? Or are the two considered synonymous? Honestly, I couldn't make this up if I tried. While I have no way of knowing whether any TSA employees read this blog, that isn't the point. My worry is what this obscene government pronouncement might mean in the long run. Especially coming on the heels of a growing movement to do something I consider unthinkable in a free society: to give the government the power to shut down the Internet. The people who work for the TSA are the lowest common denominator in robotic, mindless law enforcement. They live by the rules of zero tolerance and zero common sense, and I believe that if they were ordered to enforce a rule of zero tolerance for controversial opinion at airports, they would be delighted (at least, to the extent such mindless personalities are capable of feelings) to operate "conversation sniffing devices," and then yank people out of line for talking about taboo subjects. It's all too easy to laugh at these people -- for they have taken all the fun out of traveling and Americans try to be a fun-loving people -- but I'm not sure that laughing at them will make them -- or their directive against "controversial opinion" -- go away. The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion." There is also no explanation as to why controversial opinions are being blocked, although the email stated that some of the restricted websites violate the Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy. It's tough, but just for today I will try to put myself in the position of being a TSA administrator in charge of determining what it is that constitutes a controversial opinion. It's tough, but just for today I will try to put myself in the position of being a TSA administrator in charge of determining what it is that constitutes a controversial opinion. A number of websites list the controversial issues in America. There are far too many to list here, but the Wiki post on the subject was helpful enough to break them down into categories: * 2.1 Politics/ economics

* 2.2 History

* 2.3 Religion

* 2.4 Science / Biology / Health

* 2.5 Sexuality

* 2.6 Sports

* 2.7 Entertainment

* 2.8 Environment

* 2.9 Law and Order

* 2.10 Linguistics

* 2.11 Philosophy

* 2.12 Psychiatry

* 2.13 Technology

* 2.14 Media/culture

* 2.15 People/ public figures/ infamous persons Damn! Who'd have thought Sports could be controversial? Uh oh. How quickly I forget! It was only a few days ago that I wrote another Damn! Who'd have thought Sports could be controversial? Uh oh. How quickly I forget! It was only a few days ago that I wrote another post speculating about Michael Vick's psychopathology -- and I do not doubt that many people -- whether inside or outside of the TSA -- would consider it controversial. Time does not permit a detailed examination of even an overview of the innumerable controversial issues. Nor does my sanity. But I'll zero in on one example, selected dartboard style from among the twenty two controversial sub-topics in the Linguistics category . The notoriously hot-button Sapir-Whorf hypothesis: The linguistic relativity principle, or the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis[1] is the idea that differences in the way languages encode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages think and behave differently because of it. A strong version of the hypothesis holds that language determines thought that linguistic categories limits and determines cognitive categories. A weaker version states that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behaviour. The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th century national romantic thinkers, such as Wilhelm von Humboldt who saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. The early 20th century school of American Anthropology headed by Franz Boas and Edward Sapir also embraced the idea. Sapir's student Benjamin Lee Whorf came to be seen as the primary proponent of the hypothesis, because he published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in human cognition and behaviour. Whorf's ideas were widely criticised, and Roger Brown and Eric Lenneberg decided to put them to the test. They reformulated Whorf's principle of linguistic relativity as a testable hypothesis, now called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and conducted experiments designed to find out whether color perception varies between speakers of languages that classified colors differently. As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came in to focus in the 1960s the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favor. A 1969 study by Brent Berlin and Paul Kay showed that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was seen as completely discredited. Thanks to the hard work over many years by Noam Chomsky and company, we (at least those of us who really care about linguistics) have been saved from the backward Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which has now become a subject of ridicule: ... the Universalist theory of language [] was finally formulated by Noam Chomsky in the form of Universal Grammar, effectively arguing that all languages share the same underlying structure. The Chomskyan school also holds the belief that linguistic structures are largely innate and that what are perceived as differences between specific languages - the knowledge acquired by learning a language - are merely surface phenomena and do not affect cognitive processes that are universal to all human beings. This theory became the dominant paradigm in American linguistics from the 1960s through the 1980s and the notion of linguistic relativity fell out of favor and became even the object of ridicule.[20] So, what does that mean if I'm standing in a long TSA screening line at an airport and I wish to avoid controversy? Thanks to the hard work over many years by Noam Chomsky and company, we (at least those of us who really care about linguistics) have been saved from the backward Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which has now become a subject of ridicule:So, what does that mean if I'm standing in a long TSA screening line at an airport and I wish to avoid controversy? Which of the following should I do? A. Ridicule the traditional Sapir-Whorf hypothesis in favor of the modern Chomskyist view? B. Attempt to defend a time-honored and "traditional" hypothesis despite my limited knowledge of whatever science might be behind it? Or C. Scrupulously avoid any mention of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis? Some might say that the best answer is C. Hear no opinion, see no opinion, speak no opinion. Some might say that the best answer is C. Hear no opinion, see no opinion, speak no opinion. I'd hate to think that's become the American way. Having no opinions on controversial issues may be orderly, but it is dull and colorless, and disses the First Amendment. But I worry that in practice, the nearly infinite nature of possible opinions on innumerable subjects might mean that implementing the directive against controversial opinions will lead not to the prohibition of opinions on controversial subjects, but simply to the prohibition of opinions which disagree with the positions taken by the government bureaucracy or dominant academicians. Whoever is in charge will have the right to issue restrictions on speech and "controversial opinion" will simply be defined as any opinion which disagrees with that of the government, its leaders, or whatever they decide. Take Global Warming, for example. The government's position is much like that of Al Gore -- the debate is over and we need to get to work. While the government (and the TSA) might not come right out and compare those who disagree to Nazis (a comparison which Frank J. Fleming did a great job of tearing to shreds recently, BTW), such a topic is a perfect example of what is often called the dominant paradigm. Government being the way it is, those who get to decide what is controversial are inevitably charged with stifling all views that dissent from the dominant view (their view) by declaring them "controversial." A controversial opinion is any opinion which disagrees with our opinion! So, AGW is not controversial, because we have all agreed on a GREEN policy. To question it is controversial. Here in Ann Arbor, being a Republican or a conservative is controversial, while being a Democrat or a liberal is not controversial. See how it works? In a post about the hotness gap (of which I am sure the TSA would disapprove) Stuart Schneiderman explains further: Feminism and radical leftism has always tried to deal with dissent by making the dissenters into outcasts and pariahs. If you disagree with the basic dogmas of feminist ideology you will, in many communities, be shunned from polite society. There are many places in this country where men hesitate to admit that they are Republicans because they will not just lose friends, but they will lose dating opportunities. Many women openly brag that they will not date Republicans; often they will not even talk with them. Say something nice about Sarah Palin in many communities and you will immediately be labeled as deranged. I do not even want to think about what it is going to do to your sex life. (Via (Via Dr. Helen .) That reminds me of the time I met a woman who worked as a producer for NPR radio who couldn't have been nicer until I mentioned in passing that as a libertarian I was not only an ACLU member, but an NRA member. End. Of. Conversation. Interestingly, I have to say that the same woman might be more open-minded today, because the left has realized that shaming people on the gun issue was an abject failure: The massive campaign by gun control groups -- and their media allies, who were legion -- to "denormalize" gun ownership, and present it as something dangerous, deviant and subject to regulation at the whims of the government, has failed, with the Supreme Court explicitly saying that gun ownership by private citizens is a fundamental part of our system of liberty. So in little more than 15 years, we've seen an amazing turnaround on an issue where the "establishment" side had broad support from politicians (in both parties, really) and almost universal support from the media. Gun control now is nearly dead as an issue, and the "establishment" view that the Second Amendment didn't protect any sort of individual right, but merely a right of states to have national guards, did not get the support of a single Supreme Court justice. In practice, what this means is not so much that I would be agreed with, but that I might not be as likely to encounter the same sort of kneejerk shunning as I did. In practice, what this means is not so much that I would be agreed with, but that I might not be as likely to encounter the same sort of kneejerk shunning as I did. This may only be a temporary tactic, though, as I have seen gun-shunners in action since I was a kid. Now, if I wanted to assign blame for the dominant paradigm of favoring all things left while shunning all things right, it would be very easy to point to Herbert Marcuse's obnoxious doctrine of repressive tolerance. It's a long essay, but a few excerpts will provide the gist of it: ...certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude. Marcuse saw traditional liberal tolerance of all ideas as unacceptable, because he perceived correctly that as a practical matter when ordinary Americans were given the option to freely choose, conservatism tended to win out. So he proposed the liberation of tolerance (which meant intolerance of the right): Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word. The traditional criterion of clear and present danger seems no longer adequate to a stage where the whole society is in the situation of the theater audience when somebody cries: 'fire'. It is a situation in which the total catastrophe could be triggered off any moment, not only by a technical error, but also by a rational miscalculation of risks, or by a rash speech of one of the leaders. In past and different circumstances, the speeches of the Fascist and Nazi leaders were the immediate prologue to the massacre. The distance between the propaganda and the action, between the organization and its release on the people had become too short. But the spreading of the word could have been stopped before it was too late: if democratic tolerance had been withdrawn when the future leaders started their campaign, mankind would have had a chance of avoiding Auschwitz and a World War. Naturally, he saw the America of the mid-1960s as fascist-like and warlike, which meant the society was in extreme danger, justifying extreme suppression of free speech and assembly: The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs. Different opinions and 'philosophies' can no longer compete peacefully for adherence and persuasion on rational grounds: the 'marketplace of ideas' is organized and delimited by those who determine the national and the individual interest. In this society, for which the ideologists have proclaimed the 'end of ideology', the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters. What he proposed was called "Repressive Tolerance" -- and the features are familiar to most American students who have attended your typical repressively intolerant college campus: Given this situation, I suggested in 'Repressive Tolerance' the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right, thus counteracting the pervasive inequality of freedom (unequal opportunity of access to the means of democratic persuasion) and strengthening the oppressed against the oppressed. Tolerance would be restricted with respect to movements of a demonstrably aggressive or destructive character (destructive of the prospects for peace, justice, and freedom for all). Such discrimination would also be applied to movements opposing the extension of social legislation to the poor, weak, disabled. As against the virulent denunciations that such a policy would do away with the sacred liberalistic principle of equality for 'the other side', I maintain that there are issues where either there is no 'other side' in any more than a formalistic sense, or where 'the other side' is demonstrably 'regressive' and impedes possible improvement of the human condition. To tolerate propaganda for inhumanity vitiates the goals not only of liberalism but of every progressive political philosophy. I see nothing especially original there. Hardly a grand conspiracy theory. It's just an articulate old Commie explaining why his then-controversial opinions should become dominant, and yours should become controversial, and should be repressed. He knew that there was no real, legal power to repress tolerance, but he wished and hoped that over time that would change: While the reversal of the trend in the educational enterprise at least could conceivably be enforced by the students and teachers themselves, and thus be self-imposed, the systematic withdrawal of tolerance toward regressive and repressive opinions and movements could only be envisaged as results of large-scale pressure which would amount to an upheaval. In other words, it would presuppose that which is still to be accomplished: the reversal of the trend. However, resistance at particular occasions, boycott, non-participation at the local and small-group level may perhaps prepare the ground.... Are people that easily led? I hope not. Because, I regard such followers with a special contempt exceeded only by the contempt in which I hold those who seek to lead them. Ugh. Marcuse saw traditional liberal tolerance of all ideas as unacceptable, because he perceived correctly that as a practical matter when ordinary Americans were given the option to freely choose, conservatism tended to win out. So he proposed the liberation of tolerance (which meant intolerance of the right):Naturally, he saw the America of the mid-1960s as fascist-like and warlike, which meant the society was in extreme danger, justifying extreme suppression of free speech and assembly:What he proposed was called "Repressive Tolerance" -- and the features are familiar to most American students who have attended your typical repressively intolerant college campus:I see nothing especially original there. Hardly a grand conspiracy theory. It's just an articulate old Commie explaining why his then-controversial opinions should become dominant, and yours should become controversial, and should be repressed. He knew that there was no real, legal power to repress tolerance, but he wished and hoped that over time that would change:Are people that easily led? I hope not. Because, I regard such followers with a special contempt exceeded only by the contempt in which I hold those who seek to lead them. Ugh. Hey what happened? I thought this was about the TSA. I don't know why their newly announced policy against "controversial opinions" should remind me of Herbert Marcuse's repressive tolerance, but it does. I must be getting paranoid. I mean, it's not as if Marcuse is in charge of the TSA. The man is dead. His ideas were palpably wrong, and so are those who think like him. It's not as if he invented intolerance of dissent. Besides, according to his own doctrines, we -- the currently oppressed minorities Marcuse called "the Damned of the Earth" -- now have just as much right to repress those in power today as his minions did back in 1965. Again: ...the false consciousness has become the general consciousness--from the government down to its last objects. The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped: their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional powers to those who oppress these minorities. It should be evident by now that the exercise of civil rights by those who don't have them presupposes the withdrawal of civil rights from those who prevent their exercise, and that liberation of the Damned of the Earth presupposes suppression not only of their old but also of their new masters. Except that I'm still a liberal of the classical variety, so I don't believe in repressing anyone's free speech rights -- not even the new masters. Repression does not justify counter-repression. Cycles of repressive tolerance are best avoided. Except that I'm still a liberal of the classical variety, so I don't believe in repressing anyone's free speech rights -- not even the new masters. Repression does not justify counter-repression. Cycles of repressive tolerance are best avoided. I only hope the TSA is not trying to start a new trend. UPDATE: The TSA seems to be backing down after criticism. After an uproar from conservative bloggers and free-speech activists, the Transportation Security Administration late Tuesday rescinded a new policy that would have prevented employees from accessing websites with "controversial opinions" on TSA computers at work. The ban on "controversial opinion" sites, issued late last week, was included as part of a more general TSA Internet-usage policy blocking employee access to gambling and chat sites, as well as sites that dealt with extreme violence or criminal activity. But the policy itself became controversial as the Drudge Report and a number of conservative bloggers highlighted the possibility that the policy could be used to censor websites critical of the agency or of the Obama administration in general. The American Civil Liberties Union also questioned the language. posted by Eric on 07.06.10 at 12:37 PM



















Comments











