Roger, I highly recommend Professor Jonathon Turley's book "The Indispensable Right" (subtitle; Free Speech in an Age of Rage"). Turley explains that even in the USA, First Amendment country, there are two views about the role of free speech in a democracy. The first Turley describes as "functional", the notion that free speech will produce better decisions in the body politic as long as it is bounded by rationality, and does no harm. Trouble is, the "as long as" quibbles produce loopholes for government to control, monitor and "curate" (Obama's word) information into channels of which it approves. All sorts of abuses devolve from this view. Turley excoriates Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote that free speech "stands no differently than freedom from vaccination." In the pandemic, Turley points out, free speech did become the same as vaccination-subject to the whim of the government.
The second view of free speech is as a natural, or autonomous right essential to personal liberty. Benjamin Cardozo wrote "freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." Louis Brandeis wrote that free speech is both "an end and a means."
Party political manifestos could prove interesting in classification are they disinformation, misinformation , deliberate false or should there be a new classification of fairy stories?
As someone who watched both yours and Holdren’s congressional testimonies, I can attest to yours as believable and his, not so much. On the other hand, I don’t believe your political views are as different from those of Jeff Sessions as you may believe. There is much stereotyping regarding political views. I consider it mostly misinformation, but some might be disinformation. In other words there is much demonizing of partisan opponents.
Sessions and I had a nice chat. Would have been nice to sit down and actually talk. I've been lucky to have had such an opportunity with many sitting Reps and Senators and I don't recall any that I could not find common ground with, R or D.
At the time it was for me also. Now I hope by sharing my experiences both policy makers and experts can learn from them. Now that I'm past it, it is all good.
6 hrs ago·edited 5 hrs agoLiked by Roger Pielke Jr.
I've been reading your work for a little over a year now. I'm still so sorry this happened to you. It's the maligning of character and pointed character assassination by a body/person with a clear power advantage that kills me. Just for being curious, asking for further details, explanations, towing the line, or worse - making someone feel small unintentionally because they have such fragile egos. That body is no longer a representative of the people it taxes. I appreciate your analysis and while I don't always agree, I find it to be represented quite factually and allows the reader make their own conclusion.
I should have added that the labeling of misinformation/disinformation is often a tactic of deliberate censorship. Conspiracy theories aside, there are so many cases now that's almost ridiculous. Utterly contrary to the first amendment. Particularly when politically motivated
I hold the distinction of being the only person mentioned in both the Climategate emails and the Clinton/Podesta Wikileaks emails. In both cases revealing efforts to sabotage my career.
It seems to be the point in these House Committee hearings to invite folks who come down on one or the other side of an issue and then for the witnesses to be treated like punching bags by the opposition Reps. It's mostly theater and revolting. Outside of a decreasing number of House and Senate members (Kennedy from LA springs to mind), treating witnesses who's views differ from the Party as beneath contempt is standard faire. Biden was especially effective at being both dismissive and disdainful of people with whom he disagreed; mostly I wanted to strike him whenever I heard old Joe bloviate in a Senate hearing. Cruz is much the same now. Ugh.
Weird so you are basically a center left guy I think based on your writings and previous posts. Now you find your self a victim of the info police. The Australia law is not an anomaly as you know. There are many on the left that think we need a similar law in the US God forbid. Very dangerous territory and why regardless of who wins the presidency we all should pray for a divided government. Otherwise welcome to Australia.
Can't we hold different positions on different issues? To whom is it important to categorize our political view, and do the categories help out understanding of each other in any way?
Good article. Michael Schellenberger is doing some excellent work exposing the growing trend toward authoritarianism worldwide. Brazil is the latest country to impose bans on content. In Brazil, there is a supreme justice who is behind it. In the US, there is a collaboration between the deep state, big tech, regime corporate media, and sadly the Democrat party to censor content they disagree with. What is new and frightening is that members of Congress are starting to smear in the most disgusting ways people like Schellenberger and Matt Taibi.
There was an opinion piece in the last few years by Dan Sarawitz theorizing that we are living through a revolution caused by the internet and its capability to give ordinary people access to unfiltered information. He compares it to the invention of the printing press which similarly allowed common people access to information not sanctioned by the elites of the day, kings and their ministers and lords, the Church and the clergy and Universities. The result was the Reformation, the Counterreformation, and the Renaissance and ultimately the destruction of the power of these old elites. The elites on our day are regime media, the deep state, and big corporations. They also sense correctly that the internet is a huge threat to their power to control information. But they are losing the war as trust in regime media is tanking and populism is rising both here and abroad.
When the history of the Censorship Industrial Complex and its global tentacles is written in the years to come, the 2024 November POTUS election will be a milestone.
My best Holdren story. Someone I know very well was working on the US National Climate Assessment. At the time, NCDC, where I worked, did a lot of the final graphics and editing. This NCA was complete and was sent to the White House for final clearance from Holdren. The Summary for Policymakers came back completely changed with numerous new and alarming conclusions unsupported by the body of the work. Dave Easterlling was responsible for responding and, good for him, firmly pushed back saying the new and unsupported conclusions would require a rework of the entire body of the report. He also noted that would take considerable time and likely raise questions. After some consideration, Holdren relented and 'his version' of the NCA was not published.
Not as bad as him tarring you Roger, but did show his real lack of interest in actual science.
Interesting - we're facing the same issues in Canada where the federal government has introduced legislation regarding "greenwashing" misinformation, with reference to "internationally-accepted standards" of correctness. Of course, nobody has the first clue what those standards might be.
The predictable result is that many organizations are pulling down anything to do with emissions reduction from their websites, as they know that the usual ENGO's will launch frivolous complaints, wasting enormous resources in doing so, in order to promote their own brand of misinformation.
We're starting to see pushback from organizations planning to turn the tables by launching formal complaints about the content on ENGO websites. Should be fun to see how this all turns out - but what a misguided, wasteful initiative. We'd all be better off trying to solve problems instead of facilitating more partisan sniping.
Government has determined that “governing” mis & disinformation is easier if it is the source of the mis & disinformation. It seeks to be the exclusive source.
Ah, the left...
Similar things occuring in Canada. Turning the screws, bit by bit by bit. The same way as China slowly turned the screws in Hong Kong.
We need more brave people like you, Roger.
That's very kind
Synonyms might be dumb/stubborn ;-)
Roger, I highly recommend Professor Jonathon Turley's book "The Indispensable Right" (subtitle; Free Speech in an Age of Rage"). Turley explains that even in the USA, First Amendment country, there are two views about the role of free speech in a democracy. The first Turley describes as "functional", the notion that free speech will produce better decisions in the body politic as long as it is bounded by rationality, and does no harm. Trouble is, the "as long as" quibbles produce loopholes for government to control, monitor and "curate" (Obama's word) information into channels of which it approves. All sorts of abuses devolve from this view. Turley excoriates Oliver Wendell Holmes, who wrote that free speech "stands no differently than freedom from vaccination." In the pandemic, Turley points out, free speech did become the same as vaccination-subject to the whim of the government.
The second view of free speech is as a natural, or autonomous right essential to personal liberty. Benjamin Cardozo wrote "freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." Louis Brandeis wrote that free speech is both "an end and a means."
Personally, I vote for the latter.
Interesting, I will add to my list. Thank you!
Where is Dr Holdren today?
He is still at Harvard.
We hosted him at CU Boulder in 2012.
Of all the science advisors I hosted (from Kennedy through Obama - and later Trump), he is the only one who refused to do a public interview with me.
Holdren is a self-made enemy of humanity along with his mentor Ehrlich.
Party political manifestos could prove interesting in classification are they disinformation, misinformation , deliberate false or should there be a new classification of fairy stories?
As someone who watched both yours and Holdren’s congressional testimonies, I can attest to yours as believable and his, not so much. On the other hand, I don’t believe your political views are as different from those of Jeff Sessions as you may believe. There is much stereotyping regarding political views. I consider it mostly misinformation, but some might be disinformation. In other words there is much demonizing of partisan opponents.
Sessions and I had a nice chat. Would have been nice to sit down and actually talk. I've been lucky to have had such an opportunity with many sitting Reps and Senators and I don't recall any that I could not find common ground with, R or D.
This is really depressing.
At the time it was for me also. Now I hope by sharing my experiences both policy makers and experts can learn from them. Now that I'm past it, it is all good.
I've been reading your work for a little over a year now. I'm still so sorry this happened to you. It's the maligning of character and pointed character assassination by a body/person with a clear power advantage that kills me. Just for being curious, asking for further details, explanations, towing the line, or worse - making someone feel small unintentionally because they have such fragile egos. That body is no longer a representative of the people it taxes. I appreciate your analysis and while I don't always agree, I find it to be represented quite factually and allows the reader make their own conclusion.
I should have added that the labeling of misinformation/disinformation is often a tactic of deliberate censorship. Conspiracy theories aside, there are so many cases now that's almost ridiculous. Utterly contrary to the first amendment. Particularly when politically motivated
Thank you.
Yes, the climate debate 2004-2015 was a trip.
I hold the distinction of being the only person mentioned in both the Climategate emails and the Clinton/Podesta Wikileaks emails. In both cases revealing efforts to sabotage my career.
For a future (very) Trivial Pursuit question!
It seems to be the point in these House Committee hearings to invite folks who come down on one or the other side of an issue and then for the witnesses to be treated like punching bags by the opposition Reps. It's mostly theater and revolting. Outside of a decreasing number of House and Senate members (Kennedy from LA springs to mind), treating witnesses who's views differ from the Party as beneath contempt is standard faire. Biden was especially effective at being both dismissive and disdainful of people with whom he disagreed; mostly I wanted to strike him whenever I heard old Joe bloviate in a Senate hearing. Cruz is much the same now. Ugh.
Weird so you are basically a center left guy I think based on your writings and previous posts. Now you find your self a victim of the info police. The Australia law is not an anomaly as you know. There are many on the left that think we need a similar law in the US God forbid. Very dangerous territory and why regardless of who wins the presidency we all should pray for a divided government. Otherwise welcome to Australia.
Jim
Some days I am center left, others center right. Depends on who you ask.
Every day however I am an American pragmatist from Colorado;-)
Can't we hold different positions on different issues? To whom is it important to categorize our political view, and do the categories help out understanding of each other in any way?
Another Colorado Pragmatist.
I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. — Richard Feynman
I like it!
The problem is the people pushing the censorship don't.
Good article. Michael Schellenberger is doing some excellent work exposing the growing trend toward authoritarianism worldwide. Brazil is the latest country to impose bans on content. In Brazil, there is a supreme justice who is behind it. In the US, there is a collaboration between the deep state, big tech, regime corporate media, and sadly the Democrat party to censor content they disagree with. What is new and frightening is that members of Congress are starting to smear in the most disgusting ways people like Schellenberger and Matt Taibi.
There was an opinion piece in the last few years by Dan Sarawitz theorizing that we are living through a revolution caused by the internet and its capability to give ordinary people access to unfiltered information. He compares it to the invention of the printing press which similarly allowed common people access to information not sanctioned by the elites of the day, kings and their ministers and lords, the Church and the clergy and Universities. The result was the Reformation, the Counterreformation, and the Renaissance and ultimately the destruction of the power of these old elites. The elites on our day are regime media, the deep state, and big corporations. They also sense correctly that the internet is a huge threat to their power to control information. But they are losing the war as trust in regime media is tanking and populism is rising both here and abroad.
When the history of the Censorship Industrial Complex and its global tentacles is written in the years to come, the 2024 November POTUS election will be a milestone.
My best Holdren story. Someone I know very well was working on the US National Climate Assessment. At the time, NCDC, where I worked, did a lot of the final graphics and editing. This NCA was complete and was sent to the White House for final clearance from Holdren. The Summary for Policymakers came back completely changed with numerous new and alarming conclusions unsupported by the body of the work. Dave Easterlling was responsible for responding and, good for him, firmly pushed back saying the new and unsupported conclusions would require a rework of the entire body of the report. He also noted that would take considerable time and likely raise questions. After some consideration, Holdren relented and 'his version' of the NCA was not published.
Not as bad as him tarring you Roger, but did show his real lack of interest in actual science.
If you want to write this up as a possible guest post, send it to me!
Interesting - we're facing the same issues in Canada where the federal government has introduced legislation regarding "greenwashing" misinformation, with reference to "internationally-accepted standards" of correctness. Of course, nobody has the first clue what those standards might be.
The predictable result is that many organizations are pulling down anything to do with emissions reduction from their websites, as they know that the usual ENGO's will launch frivolous complaints, wasting enormous resources in doing so, in order to promote their own brand of misinformation.
We're starting to see pushback from organizations planning to turn the tables by launching formal complaints about the content on ENGO websites. Should be fun to see how this all turns out - but what a misguided, wasteful initiative. We'd all be better off trying to solve problems instead of facilitating more partisan sniping.
My most often paraphrased quote comes from Walter Lippmann ~1910
The goal of politics is not to get everyone to think alike, but to help people who think differently to act alike.
Government has determined that “governing” mis & disinformation is easier if it is the source of the mis & disinformation. It seeks to be the exclusive source.