SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
metoo
Section 230 Is a Civil Rights Statute
Without Section 230’s protections, Americans would know less about police brutality, allegations of sexual abuse by the powerful, or the options for women seeking an abortion in states that allow them. The measure must be protected.
Feb 17, 2024
Black History Month is a powerful reminder that each American, no matter their stature, has an ability to affect great change. That’s due in large part to the free speech protections afforded us under the First Amendment. During the 1960s, social justice advocates exercised their free speech rights through rallies, protests, and speeches, paving the way for the passage of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.
Today, it’s far easier to advance social progress through online platforms, thanks to a federal statute that fosters open inquiry, debate, and commentary.
That statute—Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—gives platforms legal immunity for what third parties post. For example, Yelp is not liable for anything written in its reviews, no matter how scathing they are. This immunity has allowed ideas on the Internet to explode, leading to breakthroughs that have improved our lives.
Yet Section 230 is now under bipartisan siege, with dozens of bills in Congress proposing to reform it and presidential candidates calling for its revocation because they believe online platforms have either become too political or engage in censorship.
In fact, the U.S. government allegedly threatened to revoke Section 230 immunity from social media platforms if they didn’t take down what the government deemed misinformation about Covid and vaccines. The charges are at the center of a legal dispute that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear during their current session.
Section 230 is now under bipartisan siege, with dozens of bills in Congress proposing to reform it and presidential candidates calling for its revocation because they believe online platforms have either become too political or engage in censorship.
Advocates for reform or revocation of Section 230 should be careful what they wish for. The immunity they currently provide removes the fear of liability, resulting in more speech, which has been advantageous for three of the major civil rights issues of the current era.
The first is the Black Lives Matter Movement. Legal immunity for social platforms has enabled African Americans and other minorities to call attention to the sometimes-deadly realities associated with police interactions in their communities. In the wake of live streaming and online postings of police brutality and the accompanying Black Lives Matter protests, some states attempted to criminalize the recording or posting of encounters with law enforcement online. Thanks to Section 230 protections, users could continue posting video and commentary about policing and BLM.
The second is the #MeToo Movement. Section 230 has allowed women to raise awareness about workplace sexual harassment. In the absence of immunity, powerful alleged abusers could threaten the platforms with legal liability for defamation and have claims about them, even true ones, to be taken down.
Finally, there’s abortion. Just four days after the Supreme Court ruled that abortion is not protected by the federal Constitution, South Carolina legislators proposed a law making it “unlawful to aid, abet, or conspire with someone to procure an abortion,” including providing information about abortion “by Internet or other mode of communication.” Without Section 230, any social media platform, website, or Internet service provider that hosted such information could potentially be criminally liable under such a statute.
Consider what would happen if Section 230 did not exist. If the government or another powerful entity wanted to suppress speech it doesn’t like, it could either take legal action against the speaker themselves or the distributor of the speech.
In most cases, it’s far more effective to go after the distributor. Threatening the author of an offensive book might cause the author to self-censor, but there is no guarantee. Threatening Barnes & Noble or Amazon is more effective because there is little economic incentive for them to continue carrying the book with the threat of government action.
Further, because distributors disseminate the work of many authors, it can compound the likelihood that they will censor more speech on the same subject. The Supreme Court has recognized that permitting distributor-level threats gives the government a potential end-around the First Amendment since it results in censorship of the speaker.
Without Section 230’s protections, Americans would know less about police brutality, allegations of sexual abuse by the powerful, or the options for women seeking an abortion in states that allow them. Social media users, particularly those in underserved, underrepresented, and otherwise resource-poor communities, would be less able to discuss those issues online.
Social media is not perfect. But the immunity provided by Section 230 makes it better, not worse.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Decade of Stagnation': UN Report Shows 9 in 10 People Still Hold Biases Against Women
"This is truly alarming and explains why the world is completely off track in achieving gender equality by 2030," an Oxfam Great Britain researcher said.
Jun 12, 2023
A United Nations report revealed Monday that despite "powerful" global movements such as #MeToo, Ni Una Menos, Time's Up, and Un Violador en Tu Camino, about 9 in 10 people worldwide still hold biases against women.
The new Gender Social Norms Index report covers 85% of the world's population and incorporates data from 2017-22. It follows the 2020 edition, which covered over 80% of the global population and relied on data through 2014.
According to the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), which produced both publications, the latest report shows "a decade of stagnation" across four dimensions explored by researchers: political, educational, economic, and physical integrity.
\u201cNew @UNDP report shows no progress in level of bias against women:\n\n\u27a1\ufe0f 50% believe men make better political leaders\n\u27a1\ufe0f 40% believe men make better business executives\n\u27a1\ufe0f 25% believe it is justified for a man to beat his wife\n\n\ud83d\udcf0 Read our full story here: https://t.co/HkjWhoEm0q\u201d— UN News (@UN News) 1686542700
"Nearly half the world's people believe that men make better political leaders than women do, and two of five people believe that men make better business executives than women do," the publication states, highlighting how few women hold roles in both areas.
"Only 11% of heads of state and 9% of heads of government are women, and women hold only 22% of ministerial posts," while "in the paid economy women hold only 28% of managerial positions," the document details. "Even when women reach leadership positions, gender biases lead to unequal treatment and judgment."
"All biased gender social norms are potentially harmful, but perhaps none has a more direct impact on women's agency and well-being than those leading to violence against women and girls," the report stresses. Over a quarter of people "believe that it is justifiable for a man to beat his wife," and a similar share of women and girls over age 15 have endured intimate partner violence.
The document also warns that "the world is not on track to achieve gender equality by 2030," which is among the 17 sustainable development goals adopted by the U.N. in 2015. Targets of the gender equality goal include ending all forms of discrimination against women and girls, including violence and harmful practices such as forced marriage, ensuring access to economic resources and reproductive healthcare, recognizing underpaid domestic work, and boosting female leadership in politics and beyond.
Anam Parvez, head of research at Oxfam Great Britain, responded with alarm to the new UNDP report's key figures.
"This is truly alarming and explains why the world is completely off track in achieving gender equality by 2030," she told The Guardian. "In 2021, 1 in 5 women were married before they turn 18, 1.7 billion women and girls live on less than $5.50 a day, and women continue to take on three times as much unpaid care and domestic work as men around the world."
"At the current rate of progress it will take 186 years to close gaps in legal protections," Parvez pointed out. "It also explains why, while there has been some progress on enacting laws that advance women's rights, social norms continue to be deeply entrenched and pervasive."
\u201c.@UNDP's new Gender Social Norms Index shows that there has been no improvement in biases against women in a decade.\n\nAlmost 9 out of 10 men and women worldwide still hold biases against women.\n\n#CheckYourBias now: https://t.co/VxVcfcUqCu\u201d— Human Development (@Human Development) 1686542465
The report says that "the gender-based biases we carry into voting booths, board meetings, interview panels, and assemblies present barriers to women's ability to fulfill their full potential. Policies to achieve comprehensive gender equality have to be designed and implemented to address biased gender social norms."
Raquel Lagunas, director of UNDP's Gender Team, explained that "an important place to start is recognizing the economic value of unpaid care work. This can be a very effective way of challenging gender norms around how care work is viewed."
"In countries with the highest levels of gender biases against women," Lagunas noted, "it is estimated that women spend over six times as much time as men on unpaid care work."
Pedro Conceição, head of UNDP’s Human Development Report Office, emphasized that "social norms that impair women's rights are also detrimental to society more broadly, dampening the expansion of human development."
"In fact, lack of progress on gender social norms is unfolding against a human development crisis: The global Human Development Index (HDI) declined in 2020 for the first time on record—and again the following year," he said. "Everyone stands to gain from ensuring freedom and agency for women."
The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
E. Jean Carroll and Other Survivors Don't Need an Excuse for Not Screaming
The millions of sexual assault survivors deserve our respect, support, and empathy, but never our pity.
Apr 28, 2023
The E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald Trump rape trial is, no doubt, eliciting a lot of understandable reactions in sexual assault survivors.* I'm a psychotherapist who, for years, has been privileged to work with many survivors. I used to consult to a rape crisis center. I don't need to hear one word of a trauma story to do trauma work, but I've heard countless stories. Stories of hope, of shame, of fear, of anger, of grief and betrayal. Stories of atrocious violence. Stories of glorious resilience.
I've watched police be respectful and kind to someone as they're reporting their assault. I've also seen police be dismissive and blaming and horrible, forcing a person, often still in what is colloquially known as shock, to prove that the "encounter" was not consensual or that she was no somehow "asking for it." I've witnessed people become "disgusted" with their partners who were assaulted, and so they leave or divorce such "damaged goods." I've heard how friends no longer know how to talk to a person, treating them like they're fragile beyond measure or as if they're contagious and if you get too close then you'll somehow become infected. I've known employers who fired their employees because they didn't have a "legitimate" reason for taking time off from work to process and integrate such a fragmenting experience. I've heard how people have been excommunicated from previously close-knit families or neighborhoods because they dared to name that an uncle or a brother or a woman down the street was their perpetrator. There have been beautiful stories of solidarity and support, too. But all too often, contending with the shaming, cruel reactions from others adds very real trauma on top of trauma.
On the stand, E. Jean Carroll talked about what happened after she publicly accused Trump: "Oh. My God. The force of hatred coming at me was staggering."
Even more trauma comes from being judged for what one did during the assault or right afterward. "Why didn't they run?" "Why didn't he fight?" "How could she possibly laugh??" Those questions all belie a total and complete ignorance of the mechanisms of trauma and millennia of nervous system evolution. Our survival strategies kick in, and, more often than not, we don't have time for conscious decision making; it just happens. In a split second, our nervous systems assess the threat and take the best course of action available. (This is why we don't take a moment to think through the pros and cons of, say, jumping out of the way of an oncoming car, or we'd be toast. We just automatically do it.)
Sometimes we're able to run away when someone tries to sexually assault us. Sometimes we can fight or scream, but often that isn't the best survival strategy because that can escalate life threatening violence and retaliation. And so, it's a really bad idea. Or maybe it's so ingrained in us to be a "good girl" that screaming doesn't even occur to us, especially if the assailant is someone we know, which is most often the case.
Much less talked about are the survival responses of compliance and appeasement. Those have saved many a life, and thank God for that. I hope all of us have access to those survival strategies, if needed. To judge those last two as "weak," or decide a survivor is partly to blame because they were compliant or appeasing, or to insist you'd do [fill in the blank] were someone sexually assaulting you, is preposterous. Maybe you would and maybe you wouldn't. Again, our nervous systems automatically kick into gear and do what they have to do to survive: fight, flee, comply, appease, or even all-but collapse or "play dead." In this instance, you might totally check out, go passive and limp to get through it. And so, you barely remember what happened, cognitively, but somatically you sure as hell know. Again, hooray that our nervous systems have that survival strategy available, too!
Then there's what happens right afterward. You might not go to the police (especially if you're part of a group that has historically been oppressed by them). You might not call a rape crisis center or a friend. Maybe you laugh uncontrollably, disoriented, incredulous at the surreal thing that just happened. People anxiously or disconnectedly laugh at horrible things that have happened to them. I see it all the time in my practice. Maybe you go back to a party, ignoring for the moment what just happened. Maybe you go shopping for dinner. "Everything's cool. Yup, all normal. Just fine." Maybe you pick a huge, screaming fight with your partner in an unconscious effort to fend off the feelings of vulnerability. None of that is "weird" or unexplainable. You're in shock. Your nervous system hasn't had near enough time to integrate or process what just happened. You're on auto pilot. You might do things that seem to make no sense. But they do if you understand trauma.
Given all these layers and sequelae of trauma, I get why many survivors never come forward. It's a big risk. Once your story is out there, it's out there. Even supportive people tend to look at you through the filter of: The One Who Was Raped. On the stand, E. Jean Carroll talked about what happened after she publicly accused Trump: "Oh. My God. The force of hatred coming at me was staggering." That onslaught is, again, more trauma on top of trauma. So is, potentially, Trump's lead counsel Joe Tacopina's line of questioning about Carroll not screaming as she was being sexually assaulted. "He raped me, whether I screamed or not. I don't need any excuse for not screaming."
Indeed, she doesn't. I can't say this too many times: Wondering or questioning why Carroll didn't scream or run or why she laughed or soon went back to work shows a total ignorance of trauma and how nervous systems work. We can't override evolution as much as we might try. Full stop. I get that in a courtroom you need a jury to believe you, but generally you don't need to justify anything to anyone. If people don't believe you, that's about them. And their ignorance or fear or discomfort.
As Carroll has, many do come forward years or decades later. Again, the accusatory cries of, "Why didn't she come forward earlier?" are absolutely uninformed. Maybe that's the time your nervous system needed to work through the trauma be it via trauma-informed therapy or self-exploration or gardening; or maybe the perpetrator finally moved or died; or maybe enough time has passed where your family is able to be supportive and not abandon you for calling out your uncle; or maybe enough is enough and you just can't stay silent a day longer. Many finally felt the validation and the safety in numbers of the #MeToo movement that allowed them to come forward. All the doubting questions ignore that in 2023 we still live in a patriarchal culture. It's a culture that continues to judge and shame and doubt and blame women for their sexual assault, or those questions would never be asked in the first place. And when other genders get assaulted, that comes with its own kind of judgment. And if you're a person of color, add another layer on top of that.
It can take a huge amount of bravery and fortitude just to get up and face a run-of-the-mill day after such a disorienting, devastating experience that robs one of a sense of safety no matter where you are because your body is the scene of the crime. Confronting a perpetrator requires its own kind of bravery. I can't pretend to imagine what it must be like to do it on the national stage.**
E. Jean Carroll and the millions of sexual assault survivors deserve our respect and support. They deserve our empathy, but never our pity. To all the sexual assault survivors out there, I see you. I believe you. And even if at times it feels all-but impossible to access, know that you're resilient beyond measure.
*If you're triggered and need support and/or resources, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1.800.656.HOPE (4673); or go to www.rainn.org.
**If you're a survivor, please hear this loud and clear: You are NO less brave if you don't confront your perpetrator. That is a deeply personal decision and sometimes it's the very best, smartest, and most strategic and self-caring decision to never, ever call out your assailant. Trust that.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular