site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   27983 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Okay, so is the answer to the hypothetical then that yes the Federalist Papers would have been legal but they would have needed to include a "I'm James Madison and I approve this message" style notification?

Okay, so is the answer to the hypothetical then that yes the Federalist Papers would have been legal but they would have needed to include a "I'm James Madison and I approve this message" style notification?

...

Would the pseudonymous Federalist Papers have been legal? ... Pseudonymous? Or reporting requirement? Criminal?

I'm asking you! I sincerely don't have a strong understanding of the operation of the law in this respect and am trying to get my head around it. Have I understood you correctly?

Definitely not legal as pseudonymous pieces; coordinated works are required to disclose, even in newspapers. I'm moderately confident the law would trigger certain reporting requirements in New York, and probably those would be mandated by federal law for Hamilton, possibly some other writers. Not sure on the journals themselves; we have mixed information on what extent they were bonafide publishers or party outfits.

... by the text of the statutes. The First Amendment raises an absolute ton of legal questions, here, and the question of whether these disclosure, reporting, and 'stand by' requirements are legal gets complicated (albeit generally expressive association, rather than free speech). Many rules have been invalidated by SCOTUS jurisprudence as overly broad, ill-defined, or improperly tailored for how large of a chilling effect on free speech they have. And there is specific precedence on reporting requirements having massive chilling effects.

Ok. So is it your position then that by the text of the statutes, when the NYT publishes an anonymous article saying "I am part of the resistance inside the Trump White House", that article would be illegal? But no one prosecutes it because it would so obviously infringe on free speech?

Possibly. The NYT specifically is a lot more likely to be a bonafide publisher by FEC regs compared to the various Federalist-era papers, and some of the electioneering requirements only apply to 'broadcast' communications, but the disclosure requirements in the statutes did not have such exceptions.

See Buckley v. Valeo. It's a bit of a dogs breakfast of a decision with a ton of balancing tests, or where the government conceded a much more restricted version of the statute on, but on the specific matter a section of the law which mandated disclosure of independent contributions :

Section 434(e) applies to "[e]very person. . . who makes contributions or expenditures." "Contributions" and "expenditures" are defined in parallel provisions in terms of the use of money or other valuable assets "for the purpose of . . . influencing" the nomination or election of candidates for federal office. [Footnote 100] It is the ambiguity of this phrase that poses constitutional problems.

Due process requires that a criminal statute provide adequate notice to a person of ordinary intelligence that his contemplated conduct is illegal, for "no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed." United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 347 U. S. 617 (1954). See also Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156 (1972). Where First Amendment rights are involved, an even "greater degree of specificity" is required. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. at 415 U. S. 573. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 408 U. S. 109 (1972); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951).

There is no legislative history to guide us in determining the scope of the critical phrase "for the purpose of . . . influencing." It appears to have been adopted without comment from earlier disclosure Acts. [Footnote 101] Congress "has voiced its wishes in [most] muted strains," leaving us to draw upon "those common sense assumptions that must be made in determining direction without a compass." Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397, 397 U. S. 412 (1970). Where the constitutional requirement of definiteness is at stake, we have the further obligation to construe the statute, if that can be done consistent with the legislature's purpose, to avoid the shoals of vagueness. United States v. Harriss, supra at 347 U. S. 618; United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. at 345 U. S. 45.

In enacting the legislation under review, Congress addressed broadly the problem of political campaign financing. It wished to promote full disclosure of campaign-oriented spending to insure both the reality and the appearance of the purity and openness of the federal election process. [Footnote 102] Our task is to construe "for the purpose of . . . influencing," incorporated in § 434(e) through the definitions of "contributions" and "expenditures," in a manner that precisely furthers this goal.

In 424 U. S. we discussed what constituted a "contribution" for purposes of the contribution limitations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 608(b) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). [Footnote 103] We construed that term to include not only contributions made directly or indirectly to a candidate, political party, or campaign committee, and contributions made to other organizations or individuals but earmarked for political purposes, but also all expenditures placed in cooperation with or with the consent of a candidate, his agents, or an authorized committee of the candidate. The definition of "contribution" in § 431(e), for disclosure purposes, parallels the definition in Title 18 almost word for word, and we construe the former provision as we have the latter. So defined, "contributions" have a sufficiently close relationship to the goals of the Act, for they are connected with a candidate or his campaign.

When we attempt to define "expenditure" in a similarly narrow way, we encounter line-drawing problems of the sort we faced in 18 U.S.C. § 608(e)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Although the phrase, "for the purpose of . . . influencing" an election or nomination, differs from the language used in § 608(e)(1), it shares the same potential for encompassing both issue discussion and advocacy of a political result. [Footnote 104] The general requirement that "political committees" and candidates disclose their expenditures could raise similar vagueness problems, for "political committee" is defined only in terms of amount of annual "contributions" and "expenditures," [Footnote 105] and could be interpreted to reach groups engaged purely in issue discussion. The lower courts have construed the words "political committee" more narrowly. [Footnote 106] To fulfill the purposes of the Act, they need only encompass organizations that are under the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate. Expenditures of candidates and of "political committees," so construed, can be assumed to fall within the core area sought to be addressed by Congress. They are, by definition, campaign-related.

But when the maker of the expenditure is not within these categories -- when it is an individual other than a candidate or a group other than a "political committee" [Footnote 107] -- the relation of the information sought to the purposes of the Act may be too remote. To insure that the reach of § 434(e) is not impermissibly broad, we construe "expenditure" for purposes of that section in the same way we construed the terms of § 608(e) -- to reach only funds used for communications that expressly advocate [Footnote 108] the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. This reading is directed precisely to that spending that is unambiguously related to the campaign of a particular federal candidate.

Note that these restricted definitions, unlike many other components, were not conceded by the state at previous court hearings, but the result of SCOTUS trimming down the statute to avoid declaring the whole thing unconstitutional.

It would have been "I'm 'Publius' and I approve this message", so probably illegal I suppose.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats