Justice, justice shall you pursue
August 19, 2018
Soon, I will be attending the reading of George Washington’s letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island, which will be followed by a speaker. This seems a like a good moment to reflect on last years letter reading and speaker.
On Saturday, we read Parashat Shoftim, which began with the command, “You shall appoint magistrates and officials for your tribes, in all the settlements that the LORD your God is giving you, and they shall govern the people with due justice.” It continued, “Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may thrive and occupy the land that the LORD your God is giving you.”
The parsha also discussed prophets and prophecy, and warned about false profits, “If the prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and the oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by the LORD; the prophet has uttered it presumptuously: do not stand in dread of him.”
The 2017 keynote speaker was Martha Minow, a Harvard law school professor. She posted her speech. The title was “Dialogue, Respect, and Inclusion: What Moses Seixas and George Washington Can Teach Us Today.”
She began by chastising the president’s ambivalent reaction to demonstrations at Charlottesville, VA.
She then commented on the exchange of letters between Moses Seixas of Newport and president geo Washington. Washington she said, went beyond Seixas to call religious freedom a right as opposed to a privilege that was granted. She also pointed out how civil the exchange of letters was a model interaction between a citizen and a government official.
Professor Minow urged us to stand up against bigotry, She used an old word, upstander, which meant someone who stands up.
“Response is required in the face of bigotry. We know the word, “bystander,” which means a person who is near but does not take part in what is happening. Yet we lack a word, at least in English, for its opposite. Actually, a new word has been invented. “Upstander” is the word; it does not yet seem to have translations in other languages…The term, “upstander” gives recognition and approval to people who stand up for their beliefs, even if they are alone; it means not being a bystander….Perhaps by naming it, the concept can become a practice. In the United States, the word has been embraced by those campaigning against domestic violence and against bullying children as well as human rights advocates.
“An upstander may speak out publicly against bigotry and injustice. An upstander may be a whistle-blower, exposing wrongdoing in the hope of stopping it. An upstander may resist the temptations of silence with support given directly to victims of bigotry and injustice.”
She concluded with, “Let’s see how we each can engage in respectful discussion and stand up for the values exemplified in their exchange.”
When discussing Charlottesville she said, “Free speech does not mean freedom from accountability. This week, we have seen how face-recognition enables for those who disagree with the Charlottesville white nationalist marchers to respond. Free speech does not mean anything goes; it limits what governments can curb private speech, but consequences from other speakers, from employers, from peer pressure, these are all possible.”
I took exception to her analysis, so I sent her a message:
“I think you were referring to how people used face recognition to identify, and to publicly out white supremacist demonstrators, which would expose them to public scorn and retaliation, such as loss of jobs, which happened to at least one person. Another person was misidentified and had to hide until things were sorted out.
“You seemed to be endorsing mob action, as long as the government was not involved.
“There are many things about your approach that bother me.
“1. What if the private citizens pick on people they don’t like, but aren’t white nationalist? It could be you, it could be me, it could be abortion supporters, opponents, or health care providers who perform or aid in the performance of abortions. It could be communists or supposed communists that are singled out.
“2. I’m not a lawyer, but the idea that not interfering free speech with free speech only applies to the government might be correct in a legal sense, but excluding private citizens (or corporations) from this leads to some moral issues…and is not so clear cut. To put this another way, I think the distinction between the government and private citizens is not so clear cut.
“I would appreciate your comments.”
She responded,
“Hello, Aaron, thanks for writing. If someone makes a statement, in a face-to-face setting, protected by the first amendment, that does not mean others must agree, be silent, or undertake no other lawful responses. The same goes for electronic communications or assemblies broadcast electronically. Mistaken identity is a problem, and one that should ne corrected. I do not endorse any illegal or violent action.
“Hope that is helpful.”
I asked a few people for their reaction. One person thought maybe she left out a sentence when she turned the page. A second person could not believe that’s what she said.
A third person was certain we heard correctly…and accused her of being politically correct…as long as it happens to someone else. “Aaron, I'm quite sure we had the correct interpretation especially considering the keynote speaker's background. They believe in free speech as long as you agree with them,” and “The same progressive people feel it is good to fire someone because he expresses views others don't want to hear. I had thought that our Bill of Rights protected freedom on speech.”
Face recognition and the other tools in our connected world can be used for both good and evil, by both governmental and non-governmental actors (both groups and individuals).
These tools can just as easily be used by private citizens to harass people like her, or like you and me, and Martha Minow thinks that’s OK as long as it is legal. This is a rather low standard. Sometimes the law is ahead of public opinion and current thinking, but sometimes the law lags the latest thinking.
So if someone loses their job for expressing a political opinions, that is legal today. In the case of Charlottesville, a white nationalist demonstrator was identified using facial recognition, and ending up losing his job at McDonalds.
These tools are used to harass doctors and others who perform abortions.
These tools can be and are used by any individual or group to harass people they disagree with. The end result could be chilling to freedom of speech.
A striking example of legal harassment was a pamphlet published in Frankfurt, Germany. “In 1934, an avid Nazi supporter named Otto Fischer, a resident of the Rödelheim district of Frankfurt am Main, Germany, published the first edition of a book entitled Eine Antwort auf die Greuel- und Boykotthetze der Juden im Ausland (“A Response to the Atrocity and Boycott Agitation of the Jews Abroad”). It was a small, paper-bound pamphlet, poorly printed on low quality paper, and consisted of an 8-page anti-Semitic German nationalist introduction followed by 177 pages of names and addresses of around 11,000 Jewish residents of Frankfurt and their businesses. This propaganda pamphlet was intended to be used to boycott Jewish companies and service providers.” [source] Otto Fisher explained in the introduction that the purpose was not to make to easy find a place to shop, but to find a place to boycott.
Martha Minow hid behind the letter of the law, which prohibits our government from contravening The First Amendment. The First Amendment, she said, does not apply to private citizens.
That might be the letter of the law, but is it the spirit of the law?
The first amendment to the Constitution states, “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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment