Merriam-Webster defines the word censor thus:

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

For censorship of expression to occur, therefore, two things must be present. The expression must be examined for objectionability. The expression then must be deleted or suppressed, which is to say that it must be prevented from being made. Merriam-Webster gives this as the relevant definition of suppress:

: to keep from public knowledge: as b: to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of <suppress the test results>

It is not enough to simply discourage an expression, but rather it must be prevented entirely.

Recent headlines have been making hay over a request of the government of Afghanistan. By way of background, it is well known that Afghanistan is going through a period of relative instability as it comes under attack from various factions and terrorist elements. These disruptive elements within (and to some extent without) Afghan society attempt to use force to bring about political, social, and cultural changes, through suicide bombings, military attacks, and other violent tactics. These actions compel Afghanistan to consider actions other nations may never even need to consider, in the interests of furthering what stability is possible now and in the future.

On Thursday Afghanistan will elect its chief executive, the president, in one of the finest traditions of democratic society. This occasion will naturally draw violence in an attempt to influence voting: recall the 2004 Madrid train bombings which occurred three days before Spain’s general elections, which undoubtedly strongly affected voting and which very possibly may have changed the outcome entirely. Yet note: election-time violence will directly affect only a few dozens or hundreds, but reports of that violence will indirectly affect several orders of magnitude more people.

Given this, and given that Afghanistan at the moment cannot control election violence nearly as well as most other nations, it is clear that when Afghanistan sees actions can be taken that will reduce the impact of violence, it is reasonable to consider taking them. In particular, Afghanistan has called on domestic and foreign media not to cover election-day violence to avoid such reports potentially driving away voters. Some denounce this request as “an attempt to censor the reporting of violence”. But is it really censorship as is claimed?

Recall the definition of “censor” given above. First, the expression must be examined for objectionability. Assuming that we admit as “examination” consideration of future expression based on past expression upon similar topics in similar situations, we indeed have this: Afghanistan has evaluated coverage surrounding election day and determined that election-day coverage of violence, during voting hours, may do more harm than good. Now, however, consider the second arm of the censorship test: the expression must be prevented from being made. On this point Afghanistan’s actions do not conform to the requirements of censorship. Afghanistan’s government has made a request that media not cover election-day violence; it has not used its democratically-permissible monopoly on force to prohibit such coverage. While a request may under certain circumstances be to some extent a prohibition, as when the request constitutes an implicit threat of future sanctions, nothing of the sort is suggested in the article to which I link. Therefore, Afghanistan’s actions, despite the inveighings of such groups as Human Rights Watch, do not constitute censorship.

A further three points are worth noting. First, the request extends only from 06:00 to 20:00, the period when polls are open in Afghanistan. The request in no way asks that coverage be diminished outside (and most particularly, after) this period, neither of then-present violence nor of violence which occurred during polling hours on election day. Reports of violence would not be “[kept] from public knowledge”, except temporarily, and only in case of voluntary restraint by individual media organizations — not by power of the government of Afghanistan. Second, the request extends only to the particular topic of violence and to no other topic. While this may certainly exclude much newsworthy information, it is limited in scope to that which gives clear cause for concern. Third, note that the request is of both “domestic and foreign media”. Afghanistan cannot censor foreign media because the responsibility for the actions of such organizations lies outside its national borders and sphere of influence (meager as that perhaps may be). The government of Afghanistan might (I have no knowledge of the limits or extent of Afghan government authority, and I only suggest a plausible possibility) have the power to censor domestic media if it chose to do so in light of current circumstances (in the same way that, in case of rebellion, the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in the United States by the government), but it has not exercised that power, if even such a power exists. A government may have claim to extensive power in theory, but it is the extent to which excessive power is not exercised when it might have been that makes that government worthy of the consent of the governed.

Accepting, then, that media organizations may choose to honor or not honor the request, should they honor the request? Here the issue is not nearly so clear, and strong arguments may be made for either choice. I am inclined to believe that voluntary restraint with respect to a specific topic, for fourteen hours during a singularly important political event with clear cause to do so, ending completely upon its termination and in no way restricting publication of coverage from those fourteen hours after their conclusion, is likely the best choice for most organizations. Media organizations should not allow insurgents and terrorists to wield their coverage as part of an Afghan suicide pact.

One fact, however, remains clear: that organizations have a choice as to whether they will allow themselves to be used in this manner demonstrates that the government of Afghanistan is not engaging in censorship.

(originally posted on my own site, but it occurs to me this is reasonably relevant as a post here as well)

I’ve seen mention various places, among others RedState, of a portion of the so-called stimulus bill that allocates money to build unneeded schools in Milwaukee. To briefly recap, here’s a summary of it by the WSJ in the best paragraph of that story:

The Milwaukee Public School system, for example, would receive $88.6 million over two years for new construction projects under the House version of the stimulus — even though the district currently has 15 vacant school buildings and declining enrollment. Between 1990 and 2008, inflation-adjusted MPS spending rose by 35%, per-pupil spending increased by 36% and state aid grew by 58%. Over the same period, enrollment fell by a percentage point and is projected to continue falling, leaving the system with enough excess capacity for some 22,000 students.

I propose we hearken back to an earlier era of pork-barrel criticism and refer to this as “schools for nobody”. It’s evocative of exactly the things conservatives have always criticized, its progenitor gives it the potential to be catchy just as “bridge to nowhere” was (although, admittedly, I don’t think it rolls off the tongue quite as well, but I can be hopeful), and its target is as indefensible as any part of the stimulus, so it’s hard to rebut.

Anybody else up for using this more broadly?

Two quick news stories in California crossed my field of view in the past few days which I found, er, interesting, to say the least.

First, if you ever happen to visit California and I happen to be in a car crash while you’re present, do not under any circumstances move me out of the car if you think the car might explode. If you did, you’re liable for any harm that might cause me, and I might be able to find a convenient excuse to sue you for lots and lots of money. The relevant section of law (1799.102) is below:

1799.102. No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission. The scene of an emergency shall not include emergency departments and other places where medical care is usually offered.

The California Supreme Court case is S152360; I don’t know enough about the California Supreme Court to know how the case is to be officially and permanently cited. (Anyone who does know should comment and inform me on this, please. ) The opinon, released on the 19th, ruled 4-3 that moving an injured person from a believed-dangerous location at the scene of an emergency (judged so by the mover, although at odds with the judgments of others at the scene) does not constitute emergency medical care; thus Torti, who in this case moved her (presumably now former) friend Van Horn from such a location is liable for civil damages resulting from moving her. Where did the term medical come from? According to the California Supreme Court:

While section 1799.102 is certainly susceptible of Torti’s plain language interpretation, a “[l]iteral construction should not prevail if it is contrary to the legislative intent apparent in the statute. The intent prevails over the letter, and the letter will, if possible, be so read as to conform to the spirit of the act.” (Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735.)

In other words, the term medical has been read into the law by the Court from the other legislative provisions which surround it. (It wasn’t even done reasonably, either, as the dissenters in the case aptly show in their dissent.) Ergo, since moving a person from a dangerous situation in an emergency isn’t medical care, the Good Samaritan in this case can be held liable for damages caused by that action.

I believe I can confidently state that at least four of the justices on the California Supreme Court are not textualists.

(It’s worth noting that others present at the accident apparently contest that there was an actual emergency at the scene, because they saw no evidence the crashed car was going to explode. If that’s the case, the correct action would have been to contest that there was an emergency and thus prevent the Good Samaritan exception from applying. [In fact the dissent in its closing paragraph noted precisely this point.] This particular situation sounds to me like more a matter of nerves than anything else, but as that argument seems not to have been raised, it’s somewhat irrelevant now anyway.)

Second, it’s no big secret that California’s in the midst of a pretty hefty budget crisis (which, to the best of my knowledge, has been around since before the current economic upheavals — a situation also shared with Michigan, my immediate past home state). California’s legislatures have been attempting to address a projected $18 billion (or so) deficit for some time now. There’s merely one small roadblock to avoid in doing so: the California State Constitution in article 13A section 3 says that:

Section 3. From and after the effective date of this article, any changes in state taxes enacted for the purpose of increasing revenues collected pursuant thereto whether by increased rates or changes in methods of computation must be imposed by an Act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property may be imposed.

To parse that out a little and omit irrelevant text, it says that any change in state taxes for the purpose of increasing revenues must be part of a legislative act passed by two-thirds of each house of the California legislature. So unless the California legislatures can get two-thirds of each house to agree to a bill to do it (and they can’t, not in the middle of an economic downturn), they can’t combat the fiscal emergency by increasing taxes.

What should then be done? Clearly, if you can’t make more money through taxes and you can’t make money through bond sales because nobody wants to buy them, the only other option is that you should spend less money (or, most probably, a blend of the two). Instead, however, we have the following (and more like it) as described by California State Assemblywoman Noreen Evans:

Specifically, the bill enacts a new $0.39 per gallon fee on gasoline. This compares with the existing $0.18 per gallon excise tax and the 5% general sales tax on gasoline which is assessed per dollar. It enacts a new $0.31 per gallon diesel fee, and this compares with the existing $0.18 per gallon diesel excise tax.

(The source of that quote is an audio file at around 27:30 into it; I transcribed from the audio. My Google-fu on this topic isn’t up to snuff at least partly because I’m still new to California politics and don’t know the right names to use in search queries, so I’m having trouble finding the quote in text format online.) So what’s happening is our spades (”taxes”) are now shovels (”fees”), except super-sized, and that rule that applied to spades no longer applies just because we’re calling them spades rather than shovels. Instead, an increase in a “fee” requires only a majority vote, not a two-thirds super-majority vote. The Governator™ vetoed this constitutional end-run (or will be doing so, not sure about the exact timeline), but that the legislatures would have the sheer audacity to attempt this is breathtaking.

There’s a lesson to be learned here, kids: if you don’t like your constitution, just ignore it. Also, blame it on an obstructionist minority if you can; it’s not your fault you had to violate the constitution to which you took an oath/affirmation of allegiance.

(also cross-posted at my personal site)

I’ve been reading (or attempting to read) RedState’s front page feed for around a year now, as a way to keep informed. When I started this was back in the RedState 2.0 days, and since then the site’s undergone a bit of an upgrade. I was mostly incommunicado from June through late October, so I didn’t get a chance to adjust to the new site until roughly the beginning of this month. It’s definitely quite a bit different! I have a few questions and comments about the new site which I presume both regulars and the Powers That Be can address; odds are I’m not bringing up anything that’s not known given how long 3.0 has been deployed, so it should be easy to answer/respond to them.

Read More →