Monday, April 23, 2018

Hillary's Hypocrisy Will Never Cease

Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State once allegedly joked in a cabinet meeting that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange should be droned to death for publishing state secrets, has now morphed into her newest role: champion of free speech and press freedoms in the Age of Trump.



For some reason, Clinton was invited to give the Arthur Miller Freedom to Write Lecture at PEN America's World Festival in New York City on Sunday night. As reported by Sopan Deb of the New York Times,
 She criticized Mr. Trump, not so subtly comparing him to authoritarian leaders who had suppressed journalism in their countries.
“Today, we have a president who seems to reject the role of a free press in our democracy,” she said. “Although obsessed with his own press coverage, he evaluates it based not on whether it provides knowledge or understanding, but solely on whether the daily coverage helps him and hurts his opponents.”
After listing more examples of Mr. Trump’s attacks on the news media, Mrs. Clinton said, “Now given his track record, is it any surprise that, according to the latest round of revelations, he joked about throwing reporters in jail to make them ‘talk’?”
This is highly ironic, given that when Clinton headed the State Department, she operated with a decidedly authoritarian bent herself when it came to the freedom of the press. While calling for a free and open internet abroad, and while praising the Arab Spring and the "Twitter and Facebook revolutions" inspired by Wikileaks, she doubled down on censorship at home. She went so far as to attempt purging Wikileaks from the web after it dumped embarrassing State Department cables for the whole world to see, covering everything from US war crimes and cover-ups to dirty tricks and petty gossip. One particularly cringe-worthy cable detailed how Clinton herself had ordered that all the plastic cups used by foreign diplomats at a U.N. conference be collected for DNA testing.

Meanwhile, her official 2011 Internet Freedom Agenda stated, “the internet has become the public space of the 21st century – the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. . . The value of these spaces derives from the variety of activities people can pursue in them, from holding a rally to selling their vegetables, to having a private conversation. These spaces provide an open platform, and so does the internet. It does not serve any particular agenda, and it never should.”

But as Timothy Garton Ash notes, this agenda simply did not and does not apply when it comes to the exercise of free speech within the United States itself. He calls it the Clinton Paradox:
When WikiLeaks, founded to release publicly significant information not published elsewhere, published information embarrassing to the US government, Clinton helped to co-ordinate action by government, banks and internet service providers to withdraw support from the organization and (unsuccessfully) remove it from the web. Other domestic policies likewise tend away from freedom and towards control. For example, the US Federal Communications Commission has now ruled that mobile devices are not subject to the net neutrality rules that prohibit discrimination of media content based on its source or destination.  Instead, mobile operators, who now control the means through which an increasing number of people go online, can block, throttle, or degrade any kind of content they like.  Most recently, the ominously named E-PARASITE bill was introduced into the US Congress. It stipulates that an internet service provider can be liable for any content or site that it delivers that has a “high probability” of being used for copyright infringement.  Critics of the bill claim that this provision could extend to almost any site that hosts user-generated content.
(Note: thanks in large part to freedom of expression on the internet, the "e-parasite bill" ultimately went down in defeat. But then came the destruction of net neutrality under Trump. Hillary did not address net neutrality during Sunday's "press freedom" speech and refused, as Wikileaks-released emails show, to champion it during her 2016 campaign. )

So it was something of a mystery to me why PEN, an organization of writers devoted to protecting the First Amendment and standing up to government censorship, would have invited Hillary Clinton to deliver their keynote address in the first place. So I went to the PEN website in search of clues. And I immediately got my answer.

It's the anti-Trump #Resistance, stupid! Writer-members have obediently and narrowly channeled their crusade for free self-expression into the vile person of Donald J. Trump, and only Donald J. Trump. He did, after all, just obligingly confirm their worst fears by joking he'd like to put reporters critical of his regime in jail for a couple of days to keep them in line. To be fair to Trump, though, this threat was merely on the say-so of fired FBI Director James Comey, who for his own jokey authoritarian part, also thinks it would be a fine idea to "put some (journalists' and leakers') heads on pikes" in this country if they start talking and writing too un-American. 

So I guess as far as PEN is concerned, the enemy of our enemies (Trump and Comey) is our friend, regardless of whether she would love to silence Wikileaks and jokily kill its founder. No matter that the Obama administration in which Hillary served was dubbed by former New York Times reporter James Risen "the greatest enemy of press freedoms in a generation" and that Barack Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous regimes combined. The PEN blurb heralding Hillary's appearance gushes:
The theme of this year’s Festival—beginning April 16 and comprising more than 60 events across New York City—is Resist and Reimagine. The line-up will draw on global experiences, perspectives, and narratives to help light the way toward surmounting current crises here at home. At a time of unprecedented threats to free speech, open discourse, and the rights of historically marginalized groups​, Secretary Clinton will draw on her experience as the nation’s top diplomat and her ​career in politics​ to underline the centrality of free speech—broadly defined and vociferously defended—in sustaining healthy democracies and vibrant societies. Clinton has shown a life-long commitment to amplifying lesser-heard voices and buttressing safeguards for free expression.
Back in 2011, however, when Hillary Clinton was strenuously engaged in trying to purge Wikileaks from the Internet, and even allegedly calling for death to Assange, the PEN organization was vigorously defending him and his organization, and encouraging media outlets not to bow to government pressure against publishing the released documents. From its statement: 
The Wikileaks issue marks a significant turning point in the evolution of the media and the sometimes conflicting principles of freedom of expression and privacy and security concerns. The culture of increasing secrecy in governments and the rise of new technology will inevitably lead to an increasing number of transparency issues of this sort. PEN International believes it is important to acknowledge that while the leaking of government documents is a crime under U.S laws, the publication of documents by Wikileaks is not a crime. Wikileaks is doing what the media has historically done, the only difference being that the documents have not been edited.
PEN International urges those voicing opinions regarding the Wikileaks debate to adopt a responsible tone, and not to play to the more extreme sections of society. In a world where journalists are regularly physically attacked, imprisoned and killed with impunity, calling for the death of a journalist is irresponsible and deplorable.
Yet only two years later, a survey by the PEN organization revealed that many of its member-writers were feeling so cowed by Edward Snowden's revelations of mass NSA surveillance on US citizens that they had begun to self-censor. 

More than a quarter of the writers reported curtailing their time spent on the Internet and deliberately avoiding writing about and talking about certain topics in email and phone conversations. Another 16 percent admitted to censoring themselves in their articles and books. The majority of respondents thought that their activities were being monitored by the US government. The topics that they reported being afraid to write or talk about included military affairs, the Occupy movement, the Middle East and North Africa, mass incarceration, drug policies, pornography, the study of "certain languages," and criticism of the US government.

Fast forward another four years, and the fear and self-censorship have apparently reached soaring new heights. PEN invites Hillary Clinton, of all people, to lecture professional writers about freedom of speech.

 Arthur Miller must be rolling in his grave. 

 And Julian Assange is still a political prisoner, his own Internet connection completely cut off under pressure from the US government. The Democratic Party is even bizarrely suing him, along with his supposed co-conspirators Trump and Russia, for a "conspiracy" to steal the election from Hillary Clinton and thereby destroy American democracy.

For such a sore loser, Hillary Clinton has certainly turned out to be one hell of a big winner. She keeps right on ticking. And sadly, PEN seems to have become just one more inmate in what Firedoglake founder Jane Hamsher so pithily called the "veal pen."


7 comments:

Mark Thomason said...

True, Hillary would never stop. She can't stop. It is who she is, a basic personality defect.

That is why she had to be defeated, even at the cost of Trump. He might well do what She certainly would have done, in wars and other disasters.

She was never going to fix health care, she already failed at that. Her Supreme Court appointments were likely to be much like Bill's and Obama's, massive compromise with the donor elite concerns.

Her poison must be removed from the Democratic Party, because the poison can never be removed from the Republican Party. We have got to get an option for which we can vote, not cement in place a future of no options for decades, which is what She would have done.

She keeps proving this, again and again.

Finally some are beginning to break away from her excuse machine, and look at what positive message can be presented for a win next time. An example of the is the Charles Blow column today in the NYT, in which he suggests we all have a cup of tea and get real. Finally.

voice-in-wilderness said...

Don't let criticism of Hillary get in the way of getting the word out about Trump's authoritarian personality. I think that is his most dangerous characteristic, his belief that everything flows from him and his whims as President. The GOP in Congress support that so far and the mass of his voters don't even begin to think in terms of authoritarianism. We should create an updated version of the famous Niemoller "First they came" poem.

The Joker said...

@voice-in-wilderness

Problem is, Trump's authoritarian personality is not an anomaly among "leaders". Many so-called democracies around the world are voting-in figures that are local variants of Trump, and many more are barely escaping that fate, often by electing "lite" versions of authoritarianism (such as Macron in France) who are decidedly anti-progressive. That indicates a wider problem is at work than simply the individuals elected.

paintedjaguar said...

@voice
Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Give it a rest, for Pete's sake. To date, Trump isn't looking like the worst Republican prez of my lifetime, or even the second worst. After Reagan and Shrub (and Obama come to that) it's hard to be shocked that yet another mountebank is occupying the White House. Further, I can't for the life of me see how anyone believes that Hillary is any less authoritarian. It's no surprise to me that she's a fan of hoary old "jokes" like "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Personally, I was overjoyed to see the back of her (or so I hoped) even at the cost of Trump. Her coronation would have killed the nascent Left resurgence, what there is of it, and set in stone the institutionalized corruption of the Dems. As for free speech, little has been more deleterious to that than the Telecommunications Act of '95, which as the self-proclaimed "co-President" Hillary must bear some responsibility for.

The Joker said...

Input "www.trumpsucks.com" into your browser, and watch it automatically redirect to "www.hillaryclinton.com"
(with accompanying hagiography:
"Welcome to the Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton
Read about Hillary's life
See Hillary's current projects
Learn about Hillary's vision for America
Send Hillary a note")

As though dislike of Trump must mean approval of Clinton. I detest them both. If those two are effectively all that this country can present as political, economic, and philosophical choices, we're doomed. 'Nuff said.

Anna Radicalova said...

"They were never going to let Bernie be the nominee", was not said by Hillary to anyone.

Jay–Ottawa said...

We are living through a time when the old gods are dying. Count PEN among those hitting the dust.

Meanwhile, a brief OT aside....

Last week (18 & 19 Apr) Karen wrote a couple of essays on the impolitic Randa Jarrar, whose tweets had dissed the dead Barbara while indirectly contradicting the as-good-as dead souls who wrote in praise of the fallen Bush. Political correctness, good taste, never kicking someone who's down (in a pine box), carefully choosing one's words, saying what's pleasing to others (especially bosses), astute timing, big white lies and, finally, Christian forgiveness––all of those lovely dispositions can smother the First Amendment. Jarrar didn't let any of those niceties keep her from saying goodbye to America's First Grandma with a Bronx cheer.

Today, the NYT finally caught up with Jarrar in its opinion pages. I spent one of my freebie peeks to read a whole essay past the headline. Counter to my expectations for yet another Good Manners lecture, writer Michelle Goldberg did a pretty good job upholding freedom of expression over politesse.

Among the top commenters (over 500 and counting) is You-Know-Who. Furthermore, the "replies" under Karen's comment are uniformly supportive, one person saying hers was the best comment of the day. In case Karen's comment is not reprinted soon on Sardonicky, here's Goldberg's variation on a perennial debate, Karen's comment, and the handful of comments to her comment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/20/opinion/the-politically-incorrect-randa-jarrar.html?emc=edit_th_180424&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=481699050424