Elections

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storylettersTrump and the Foiled Plot at the Justice Dept.Readers are shocked by what one calls “the most stunning episode” in the former president’s efforts to overturn the election.Jan. 26, 2021, 1:14 p.m. ETColleagues said they had seen Jeffrey Clark, who was the head of the Justice Department’s civil division, as an establishment lawyer who was not particularly Trumpist.Credit…Pool photo by Yuri GripasTo the Editor:Re “Mutiny Halted Trump Scheme in Justice Dept.” (front page, Jan. 23):The revelation of the plot hatched by Jeffrey Clark to use the Justice Department to bolster President Donald Trump’s false claims of the election being stolen shows how perilously close this country came to a true constitutional crisis.It was only the willingness of department officials to put their own careers on the line to halt this anti-democratic scheme that prevented the replacement of Jeffrey Rosen by this Trump loyalist, one with a penchant for conspiracy theories.Mr. Clark’s name can now be added to the list of politicians like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Kevin McCarthy and sadly many others for whom personal ambition and a cynical disregard for the truth supersede any commitment to their oaths of office and any genuine concern for the welfare of the United States.Michael EsterowitzBrooklynTo the Editor:Americans must draw the right lesson from this farce. The right lesson is not that democracy worked after all. Nor is it that Donald Trump is an anomaly that will never recur.If Donald Trump and his minions had been as disciplined and organized as they were contemptuous of democracy, or if the election had been closer, their last-ditch efforts to carry out a coup might have succeeded.The right lesson is that the president must have absolutely no power over judicial matters: the Justice Department and the federal courts. The Justice Department must operate independently from the White House. Federal judges and the attorney general must be named by a process that excludes the president from participation.If the fox is allowed to continue to guard the chicken coop, then next time — if he is shrewder and more determined, and has done a better job of installing loyal lackeys to do his bidding — he might really get away with eating the chickens.Ben SilvermanRosarito Beach, MexicoTo the Editor:Because the story on Donald Trump’s attempt to use the Justice Department to overturn election results in Georgia has such strong echoes of Watergate’s Saturday Night Massacre, and because Katie Benner’s excellent reporting paints a portrait of just how desperate and seemingly delusional Donald Trump was, it struck me as the most stunning episode in his never-ending battle to overturn the election.Since the election we have learned of Mr. Trump’s court challenges to the results, his phone calls to pressure election and other officials in the swing states, and his media campaign that pushed a lie about voter fraud. But his machinations at the Justice Department somehow add a note of desperation that is deeply shocking, even taking into account all we knew of him.Kay OppenheimerAiken, S.C.The writer is a retired attorney.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

Twitter has permanently banned My Pillow chief executive Mike Lindell, after he continued to perpetuate the baseless claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 US presidential election.Twitter decided to ban Lindell due to “repeated violations” of its civic integrity policy, a spokesperson said. The policy was implemented last September and is targeted at fighting disinformation.It was not immediately clear which posts by Lindell triggered his suspension.Lindell, a Trump supporter, has continued to insist that the election was rigged even after Joe Biden has begun work in the Oval Office.Major retailers such as Bed Bath & Beyond and Kohl’s have said they will stop carrying My Pillow products, Lindell previously said.Lindell is also facing potential litigation from Dominion Voting Systems for claiming their machines played a role in alleged election fraud. He also urged Trump to declare martial law in an attempt to overturn the election.Following the storming of the US Capitol earlier this month, Twitter has banned more than 70,000 accounts for sharing misinformation.Trump, who urged on the mob, has also had his account permanently suspended. More

Avril Haines, who now oversees all 16 US intelligence agencies, is unlike any of the spies who came before her, and not just because she is the country’s first female director of national intelligence.She is also the first intelligence chief to have to make an emergency landing while trying to cross the Atlantic in a tiny plane; the first to take a year out in Japan to learn judo; and surely the first anywhere in the world to have owned a cafe-bookstore that staged frequent erotica nights.“What’s interesting about Avril is that she’s just a voraciously curious person who will throw herself into whatever she’s doing,” said Ben Rhodes, Barack Obama’s former speechwriter and foreign policy aide who is a close friend of Haines.The Haines backstory makes her an unlikely spy, but proved no obstacle to getting bipartisan support. She was the first Biden nominee to be confirmed, with 84-10 Senate vote on Wednesday night.David Priess, a former CIA official now chief operating officer at the Lawfare Institute, said her unusual life story is an advantage in the world of espionage.“She has to be able to understand and to lead everyone from analysts to intelligence collectors to engineers to pilots to disguise artists to accountants,” Priess said.“Having that diverse set of experiences very much helps her to lead the very diverse and disparate intelligence community.”Haines’ period of lifestyle experimentation anyway ended decades ago, in 1998 when she started a law degree. Since then she has been a legal counsel in the Senate, state department and White House, the deputy director of the CIA and deputy national security adviser.Senate Republicans, who had confirmed her Trump-appointed predecessor, John Ratcliffe, despite his lack of any significant experience in intelligence and his exaggeration of his previous brushes with security work, had few excuses to oppose her.The main source of scepticism comes from human rights activists, over whether she might be too much of an insider, with too much baggage. She redacted the report on torture – some argue over-redacted it – and she codified a set of procedures and rules for the use of drone strikes in the assassinations of terror suspects.Early lifeThere is little in Haines’ early life to suggest a trajectory towards national security and intelligence. She grew up in an apartment on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, the daughter of a biochemist, Thomas Haines and a painter, Adrian Rappin. Rappin fell seriously ill with lung disease when Avril was 12, and she spent four of her early teenage years as her mother’s principal carer until her death in 1985.According to an account in Newsweek, the family was forced to give up their apartment under the relentless pressure of medical costs, and had to move around the homes of friends and relatives. By the time she left high school, the teenage Haines was so spent, she deferred college for a year and instead went to study judo at Tokyo’s Kodokan Institute, where she rose to a brown beltOn her return to the US, she studied theoretical physics at the University of Chicago and to help make ends meet, worked as a car mechanic, rebuilding car engines, and while at university, she was knocked off her bicycle by a car and left with a serious injury that continues to dog her.Undeterred, she plunged into her next dream project, restoring a second-hand plane and flying it to Europe. With her flight instructor she found a 1961 Cessna and rebuilt its navigation, communication and other electronic systems, before taking off from Bangor, Maine, with long-distance fuel tanks strapped to the fuselage.Not long into the flight, however, the Cessna began to take on ice and then both engines stopped. They had to glide low over the Labrador Sea, and were lucky to find a small airfield on the Newfoundland coast, where they made an emergency landing, and where they looked after for a week in the local community until the weather improved. Haines’ friends confirmed they believed the Newsweek account of the adventure to be accurate.One upshot of the failed adventure was that Haines married her instructor, David Davighi. They moved to Baltimore, and though the initial plan was for her to go back to school and for him to work as a pilot, another inspiration took them in a different direction entirely.They saw a newspaper advertisement for a bar-brothel that had been seized in a drugs raid and was being auctioned off. They bought it, selling the Cessna and going into debt to refashion it as Adrian’s Book Café, in honour of Haines’ mother.In Fells Point, a formerly dodgy area of Baltimore that was gentrifying, the shop succeeded, through hard work and innovations like erotic literature evenings upstairs in the former brothel, where Haines would read extracts.She defined the genre to the Baltimore Sun in 1995 as as “everything that’s repressed, guttural, instinctual, chaotic and creative.”“Erotica has become more prevalent because people are trying to have sex without having sex,” Haines said. “Others are trying to find new fantasies to make their monogamous relationships more satisfying … What the erotic offers is spontaneity, twists and turns. And it affects everyone.”Change of directionThe bank offered more launches to expand the franchise but by then, Haines had changed direction again. Community organising had got her interested in the law and in 1998 she enrolled at Georgetown University, where she came to specialise in human rights and international law.To Haines’ detractors, those were ironic choices in light of her later associations with two of the biggest stains on the US record after 9/11: torture and drones.Much of her work in the Obama national security council involved writing up a “playbook” which codified criteria for drone strikes, which the administration relied on increasingly to target leading members of terrorist groups.Her former colleagues however, insist that Haines played an important role in limiting the use of drones, challenging top officials in the Obama administration to prove that a target represented a genuine threat.“Avril really spearheaded the efforts that impose limits on the use of drones, the standard for avoiding civilian casualties, a more controlled process for determining who could be targeted,” Rhodes said.“Many people didn’t want those rules written down, because they thought by specifying things that would limit their options,” another former senior official, who did not want to be named, said. “I’ve seen her speak to power over and over and over again, in situations where I’ve seen many other people chicken out.”Obama administrationThere are other criticisms of Haines’ tenure as deputy CIA director. She arrived in 2013 when the Obama administration was still bogged down in dealing with the aftermath of its predecessor’s use of torture against terror suspects.In 2015, Haines had to decide what to do about CIA officials who had hacked into the computers of Senate intelligence committee staffers who had been compiling a comprehensive report on torture, and even drummed up spurious criminal cases against them. She overrode the advice of the CIA inspector general and recommended against disciplinary action.“No one was held accountable for that and Haines apparently thinks that is an okay resolution to the matter,” Daniel Jones, the Senate report’s lead author who was one of the targets of the CIA reprisals. “Many people have nothing but great things to say about her, but that is a massive blind spot which is kind of unforgivable.”When the Senate report by Jones and his team was finished, it was Haines who had the job of redacting it. By the time she was done, only 525 pages of the 6,700 total were released.“When Obama came into office he signed an executive order that explicitly stated that you could not classify information that was simply embarrassing,” Jones said. “I feel strongly that she advocated for redactions that were not consistent with Obama’s executive order.”Haines’ role in the torture report, on the other hand, has probably strengthened her standing in the intelligence community, where she might otherwise be viewed as an outsider without experience in the field.What counts even more though, is her previous relationship with the president, something none of her predecessors had. That alone could make her one of the more powerful directors of national intelligence.“I was in the PDB [president’s daily brief] every morning with her for the last couple of years [of the Obama administration] when she was deputy national security adviser, and so was Biden,” Rhodes said. “Presumably now as DNI, she could be the person briefing Biden every morning on intelligence matters.” More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutVisual TimelineInside the SiegeNotable ArrestsThe Global Far RightAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFrom Navy SEAL to Part of the Angry Mob Outside the CapitolThe presence in Washington of a longtime member of the Navy SEALs who was trained to identify misinformation reflects the partisan politics that helped lead to the assault.Adam Newbold, a former member of the Navy SEALs, sat on a police motorcycle near the steps of the Capitol during the riot on Jan. 6. Mr. Newbold says he didn’t enter the building.Credit…William TurtonJan. 26, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETIn the weeks since Adam Newbold, a former member of the Navy SEALs, was identified as part of the enraged crowd that descended on the Capitol on Jan. 6, he has been interviewed by the F.B.I. and has resigned under pressure from jobs as a mentor and as a volunteer wrestling coach. He expects his business to lose major customers over his actions.But none of it has shaken his belief, against all evidence, that the presidential election was stolen and that people like him were right to rise up.It is surprising because Mr. Newbold’s background would seem to armor him better than most against the lure of baseless conspiracy theories. In the Navy, he was trained as an expert in sorting information from disinformation, a clandestine commando who spent years working in intelligence paired with the C.I.A., and he once mocked the idea of shadowy antidemocratic plots as “tinfoil hat” thinking.Even so, like thousands of others who surged to Washington this month to support President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Newbold bought into the fabricated theory that the election was rigged by a shadowy cabal of liberal power brokers who had pushed the nation to the precipice of civil war. No one could persuade him otherwise.Photos from the Capitol show Mr. Newbold wearing a black “We the People” T-shirt and straddling a Capitol Police motorcycle, just a few steps from where officers were battling with rioters.Mr. Newbold says he did not enter the Capitol, and he has not been charged with any crimes. But his presence there reflects the volatile brew of partisan politics and viral misinformation that helped lead to the assault.Mr. Newbold’s worldview is plain from his Facebook account. In a combative video laden with expletives that he posted a week before the riot, he repeated debunked but widely circulated claims about the election, saying that “it is absolutely unbelievable, the mountains of evidence of election fraud and voter fraud and machines and people who voted, dead people who voted.” When commenters challenged him, he responded with expletives and rejoinders like “Yeah keep laughing, you’re going to be laughing when you’re stomped down.”One striking aspect of the angry crowd at the Capitol was how many of its members seemed to come not from the fringes of American society but from white picket-fence Main Street backgrounds — firefighters and real estate agents, a marketing executive and a Town Council member, all captivated by flimsy conspiracy theories. Mr. Newbold’s presence showed just how persuasive the rigged-election story had grown.His experience ought to have made him hard to fool. A few years earlier, he had been on the receiving end of the same kind of baseless and potentially dangerous fervor about a supposed sinister government plot that became known as Jade Helm.Even after the Capitol riot, though, he expressed certainty that he had not been fooled.“I’ve been to countries all over the world that are indoctrinated by propaganda,” Mr. Newbold said in a long telephone interview last week, adding that he knew how misinformation could be used to manipulate the masses. “I have no doubts; I’m convinced that the election was not free and fair.”He said he believed that unnamed elites had quietly pulled off a coup by manipulating election software, and warned that the country was still on the precipice of war.In a Facebook video posted on Jan. 5, Adam Newbold said pro-Trump demonstrators like himself should respect the police and National Guard troops. But he added, “We are just very prepared, very capable, and very skilled patriots ready for a fight.Credit…Facebook, via Associated PressMr. Newbold, 45, lives in the rural hills of eastern Ohio, and is one of three brothers who all became Navy SEAL commandos. He spent 23 years in the elite force, Navy records show, including seven in the Naval Reserves, before retiring as a senior chief petty officer in 2017. He was given two Navy Commendation medals for valor in combat deployments, and several others for good conduct.A former SEAL who served with him at Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek in Virginia said Mr. Newbold was smart and had a good reputation in the SEAL teams, and had worked with the C.I.A. on intelligence gathering.After the Navy, Mr. Newbold moved to the small town of Lisbon, Ohio, opened a coffee shop and started a company called Advanced Training Group that taught SEAL-style tactics to members of the military and the police, and maintained a gym and shooting club for locals.Through his company, he got involved in helping to design and conduct an eight-week military exercise in Texas and other border states in the summer of 2015 that was called Jade Helm 15.When a PowerPoint slide summarizing the exercise was leaked, it was seized upon by fringe Facebook groups and professional conspiracy-theory promoters like Alex Jones, who began claiming that Jade Helm was a covert plot to have federal troops invade Texas, seize citizens’ guns and impose martial law. Baseless rumors circulated about “black helicopters” and Walmart stores that had supposedly been turned into detention camps.The storm of political paranoia whipped up over a straightforward military exercise became so fierce that some members of Congress, who later questioned the election of Joseph R. Biden Jr., began demanding answers, and Gov. Greg Abbott directed the Texas National Guard to keep watch.In the end, the exercise went off without a hitch. Mr. Newbold said in the interview that he and the other former special operators who planned the training exercise laughed at the paranoia, and even made T-shirts saying “I went to Jade Helm and all I got was this tinfoil hat.”Last week, he acknowledged that the frenzy of misinformation surrounding Jade Helm could have been lethal. Local residents in Texas had been scared to the edge of violence. Three men were arrested after planning to attack the exercise with pipe bombs.“There were actually some farmers and landowners who were making threats that if anyone was on their land, they would shoot them, so there were real concerns,” Mr. Newbold said. “It’s funny, but it’s stuff we have to take seriously.”.css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1amoy78{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.At the time, Mr. Newbold dismissed what he had witnessed as fringe ravings, not knowing it was a forerunner of the fantasies that came to suck in many more Americans, including military troops, police officers, members of Congress and a sitting president — not to mention Mr. Newbold.Mr. Newbold is a longtime registered Republican who said he voted for Mr. Trump. In the past four years, as mainstream media coverage of the president grew harsher, and Mr. Newbold’s sometimes strident support on Facebook drew more rebukes, he migrated to news sources and chat rooms that shared his views.By the late fall of 2020, he was spending time on private Facebook pages where far-right chatter proliferated. He posted long, often angry video soliloquies about how the country was being stolen. He seemed to become increasingly convinced that people were plotting not just against Mr. Trump but against the Constitution, and as a veteran it was his duty to defend it.Mr. Newbold began holding private meetings at his shooting club with other like-minded members, according to a former member who said he quit because he was alarmed at the growing extremism.“It became super cultlike,” said the former member, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was afraid of retaliation. “I tried to reason with him, show him facts, and he just went nuclear.”After the November election, Mr. Newbold’s Facebook posts predicting a coming war worried some people in Lisbon to the point that at least one said she alerted the F.B.I.Last week when discussing his beliefs, Mr. Newbold dismissed the dozens of court decisions rejecting challenges to the election results, and shrugged off the logistical obstacles to rigging an election conducted by independent officials in more than 3,000 counties. Without citing evidence, he suggested it was naïve to assume the results had not been rigged.In a long video posted late in December, the former member of the SEALs predicted a communist takeover if people did not rise up to stop it. “Once things start going violent, then I’m in my element,” he said in the video. “And I will defend this country. And there’s a lot of other people that will too.”A week later, Mr. Newbold organized a group of his company’s employees, club members and supporters to travel in a caravan to Washington, and joined the flag-waving crowd that surged toward the Capitol on Jan. 6.In a video posted that evening, he is seen saying that members of his group had been on the “very front lines” of the unrest. “Guys, you would be proud,” Mr. Newbold tells his viewers. “I don’t know when the last time you stormed the Capitol was. But that’s what happened. It was historic, it was necessary.” He adds that members of Congress were “shaking in their shoes.”In the interview last week, Mr. Newbold sought to downplay his involvement in the events at the Capitol. He said that he sat on the police motorcycle only to keep vandals away from it, and that he had traveled to Washington not to incite violence but to protect the Capitol from angry liberals in the event that the Senate agreed to stop the certification of the election. After the attack on the Capitol, he deleted some of his more incendiary online posts. But what happened in Washington has apparently not prompted him to question his beliefs. He said that he was still sure the election had been stolen and that the country was on a path toward global autocracy.And in a video posted six days after the riot, when it was known that people had died, Mr. Newbold said that at the Capitol he had felt “a sense of pride that Americans were finally standing up.” He did not rule out turning to violence himself.“I make no apologies for being a rough man ready to do rough things in rough situations,” he said. “It is absolutely necessary at times, and has been throughout our history.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpiniónSupported byContinue reading the main storyComentarioLa paz fea de El SalvadorEn el preludio de las elecciones, el presidente Nayib Bukele llamó farsa a los Acuerdos de Paz, que acabaron con una guerra de 12 años. Sus palabras indignaron, pero sobre todo revelan que busca presentarse como el parteaguas en la historia del país.Nayib Bukele, el presidente de El Salvador, en diciembreCredit…Miguel Lemus/EPA vía ShutterstockEs periodista y editor de El Salvador.26 de enero de 2021 a las 05:00 ETSAN SALVADOR — El Salvador firmó sus Acuerdos de Paz hace 29 años y desde entonces no ha vivido en paz. Ha vivido sin guerra civil, lo que no ha sido poco ni suficiente. Eso ha quedado claro estos días.El aniversario de aquel pacto que acabó con 12 años de conflicto armado ocurrió hace un par de semanas y tuvo que haber pasado sin pena ni gloria, pero el presidente Nayib Bukele lo convirtió en todo un evento que terminó con su propia etiqueta en redes sociales. Lo que Bukele hizo suena pueril de solo pronunciarse: utilizó nuestra guerra y nuestra paz como arma arrojadiza contra sus opositores políticos. “¡La guerra fue una farsa! Fue una farsa como los Acuerdos de Paz. ‘Ay, está mancillando los Acuerdos de Paz’. Sí, los mancillo, porque fueron una farsa, una negociación entre dos cúpulas o ¿qué beneficios le trajo al pueblo salvadoreño?”, dijo Bukele a mediados de diciembre durante un discurso público.Las palabras de Bukele escandalizaron a muchos, pero también el escenario donde las pronunció. Lo hizo durante un discurso en el caserío El Mozote, donde en 1981, con la guerra recién iniciada, un batallón militar masacró a cerca de 1000 personas desarmadas.En la tarima, observando al presidente aquel día, estaba Sofía Romero, una mujer que sobrevivió luego de huir tras ser violada por cinco militares en los meses previos a la masacre. De las cuatro personas que estaban en la tarima, Sofía fue la única que no tuvo turno de palabra. La sobreviviente fue solo espectadora de aquel evento.Bukele se vende como un mesías, como el parteaguas en la historia de este país y no pretende permitir que le compita ninguna guerra, con todos sus magnicidios y masacres; ni tampoco una paz, con todos sus logros e imperfecciones.El estilo autoritario, 29 años después de salir de una batalla contra regímenes militares, sigue gustando en El Salvador. La acumulación del poder es el camino, según la gran mayoría. Somos los herederos de una paz fea. Importante, necesaria, pero fea.Durante décadas en el poder, los partidos que gobernaron la posguerra, la exguerrilla del FMLN y el derechista ARENA, llevaron al país a otras guerras nuevas, donde sus errores en el manejo de la seguridad pública terminaron convirtiéndonos en la nación más homicida del mundo en años recientes. Los hombres a los que esos partidos eligieron para gobernar nuestra paz saquearon este país a manos llenas. Tres expresidentes han pasado de diferentes formas por procesos relacionados con su corrupción: dos de la derecha, uno de la izquierda. Afearon nuestra paz durante años.Ahora Bukele no pretende deformarla más, sino sacarla de la discusión llamándole farsa.El repudio a las palabras de Bukele sobrevivió a las fiestas navideñas y perduró hasta la conmemoración del 29 aniversario de la Paz este 16 de enero. Un centenar de académicos publicó una carta abierta exigiendo al presidente honrar la memoria de una guerra que dejó más de 75.000 muertos. Geoff Thale, presidente de la Oficina en Washington para Asuntos Latinoamericanos (WOLA), un influyente laboratorio de ideas en aquella capital del poder político, publicó un análisis diciendo que las declaraciones de Bukele eran tristes, pero no sorprendentes.Estoy de acuerdo: las palabras del presidente fueron ofensivas, violentas incluso, ignorantes, pero también conscientes y previsibles. Reflejan la visión política de Bukele, en la que su autoritarismo y megalomanía son principios rectores y alcanzan nuevas cimas en el transcurso de su mandato. Esta vez, Bukele dejó clara su intención: la memoria de la guerra y de los Acuerdos de Paz no le sirven para sus aspiraciones políticas. Recordar un conflicto y su resolución no funciona porque él no fue el protagonista. Era apenas un niño cuando aquello terminó en 1992.Pero el intento de anular a los demás sí le ha funcionado en su carrera política y es su declarada intención para las elecciones legislativas y municipales de febrero: ganó la presidencia asegurando que acabaría con “los mismos de siempre”, a pesar de que él proviene de años de función pública como miembro del izquierdista FMLN y algunos de sus candidatos y aliados más visibles sean políticos curtidos en los partidos de la derecha salvadoreña. Ahora, en estos comicios que son una meta para él, el eslogan de campaña reza que todos esos que no están con él “van para afuera”. Para Bukele, todos los políticos que lo precedieron y ahora no lo aplauden son un lastre, y su estrategia pasa por anularlos en las urnas y en la memoria de los salvadoreños.Las redes sociales fueron protagonistas de esta conmemoración. Un hashtag en el centro de todo: #ProhibidoOlvidarSV. Decenas de miles de salvadoreños compartimos microhistorias de la guerra desde esa etiqueta, hablamos de nuestras muertes y memorias. Fue inspirador que miles de adultos jóvenes, la generación de los hijos de la guerra, asumieran como una afrenta personal las declaraciones de Bukele y se consideraran, aunque sea a través de un acto simbólico, guardianes de esa memoria. Fue un performance potente que atrajo mucha atención.Sin embargo, estos días dejaron también un recordatorio ineludible: las flaquezas de nuestra paz siguen ahí. El meteórico ascenso de Bukele es un claro reflejo de ello.Por más tuits, retuits y me gusta que hayan logrado las microhistorias de la guerra, ese presidente que despreció su legado es el hombre fuerte de la política en El Salvador. Su nota, a más de aún año de gestión y aún en la encuesta donde sale menos favorecido, sigue arriba del 70 por ciento y está camino a unas elecciones legislativas donde todo apunta a que los salvadoreños le darán más poder que a ningún líder de la postguerra. Pronto, Bukele contará con cientos de alcaldes y decenas de diputados sumisos a él.La paz fue el fin de un conflicto, pero también el inicio de una nueva vida en la que, por ejemplo, ya nadie te tortura por leer un libro de Marx. La paz trajo beneficios y obligaciones, pero muchos políticos de antes y de hoy se han olvidado poco a poco de esto último. La paz es su huérfana.Es claro que la ciudadanía debe ser la defensora del legado de los Acuerdos de Paz, porque será la que más sufra su detrimento. Es evidente que la vocación democrática de esta ciudadanía no es su principal rasgo. Pero también es cierto que aún es posible cambiar eso, y que ello pasa por despreciar el desprecio de políticos como Bukele y honrar nuestros Acuerdos de Paz como lo que fueron: la promesa de un futuro que no hemos alcanzado y nunca un arma electoral. Y nunca, pregunten a los torturados y los huérfanos, una farsa.Óscar Martínez es jefe de redacción de El Faro, autor de Los migrantes que no importan y Una historia de violencia y coautor de El Niño de Hollywood, sobre la MS-13.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHow Nan Whaley, Dayton’s Mayor, Sees Ohio Politics and Portman’s Senate SeatIn an interview, Ms. Whaley, a Democrat, discusses what her party needs to do to start winning more statewide races in Ohio, including the 2022 races for Senate and governor that she is mulling.Nan Whaley, the mayor of Dayton, Ohio, during a 2019 rally for Pete Buttigieg in South Bend, Ind. Ms. Whaley is considering a 2022 campaign for governor or for the Senate seat currently held by Rob Portman.Credit…Darron Cummings/Associated PressJan. 26, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETSenator Rob Portman’s announcement on Monday that he would not seek a third term in 2022 sent a shock wave through Ohio politics and dealt a setback to national Republicans who were counting on Mr. Portman, 65, to easily keep his seat in G.O.P. hands next year. By the afternoon, a throng of ambitious Republicans were circling the race, including the far-right Representative Jim Jordan, as well as a few prominent Democrats.One of those Democrats was Mayor Nan Whaley of Dayton. A 45-year-old progressive who campaigned for Pete Buttigieg in the 2020 presidential primaries, Ms. Whaley has long been seen as a likely candidate for governor or Senate. In 2019, she led her city through the aftermath of a mass shooting in which nine people were killed.Democrats in Ohio have seen the political tide turn hard against them over the past decade, and they have lost three races for governor, two out of four Senate campaigns and nearly every other statewide election, leaving Senator Sherrod Brown, 68, as a lonely Democrat holding high office there. Though Barack Obama won Ohio twice, Donald J. Trump carried it by eight percentage points in both 2016 and 2020.In an interview with The Times on Monday evening, Ms. Whaley confirmed her interest in being a candidate in 2022 and said President Biden must move swiftly to deliver economic relief to the people in her state. The interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.What’s it going to take for Democrats to get back in the game statewide?We have all recognized, from the close governor’s race in ’18 and the tough presidential races, that we have to have an Ohio-specific message. So, regardless if it’s a federal race or a local race, there is a message like the message Sherrod Brown delivers that resonates very well in this state. It’s not necessarily being a moderate. It’s a message of being very real and talking about the issue that affects Ohioans the most, first — and that is the fact that for three decades, they have been working harder and harder and getting further behind.The true civil war in the Republican Party gives Democrats in this state a great opportunity.In a backward-looking way: Do you think Obama’s success in Ohio gave people an unrealistic sense of how purple it is, or do you think Trump’s strength there has given people an unrealistic sense of how red it is?I think it’s both, honestly. I think what people forget about Ohio is, it’s an economic populist state, and its economic populism is why Sherrod does so well here. When Trump was like, “$2,000 stimulus checks for everyone,” I was like, “Absolutely, I agree with Trump, that’s right.”What people want in Ohio — it’s not complicated. They want to work and they want to get paid decent for that work. It’s not rocket science. And over three decades, both parties have not been paying attention to that.I think ’22 gives us a real opportunity to localize some of these issues in Ohio.When you say “localize” — how much is that an admission that, look, the national brand and the national cultural orientation of the Democratic Party is just a big problem in Ohio?I am frustrated sometimes with the national messaging, and it’s not just the Democratic Party. Just, a lot of times, the elitism that comes off from the coasts. That’s a challenge.The Michigan Democratic message? That’s a good message for Ohio.How does that elitism translate in the political message of the party?It’s what we choose to talk about first.You know, I was on a call this week with John Kerry and Gina McCarthy about the work on climate change, which we all agree on. But the key, for us, if you look at what Bill Peduto has moved forward with mayors from Ohio and the Ohio River Valley, the Marshall Plan for Middle America — we have to bring these jobs to the middle of the country.It can’t just be, “This is great for the climate.” It’s also, “It’s a great job creator.” And that’s what we should lead with in these states.Are there things that national Democrats talk about that you feel like, it’s not even a question of emphasis or angle, but it needs to not be on the agenda — period?No, I don’t. I don’t think there’s anything like that. But I think what we lead with a lot of times comes off in a way that doesn’t resonate.One of the challenges in our party is, we have a lot of smart people in the party and everyone wants to be the smartest person in the room. And shouldn’t we be focused on what makes people’s lives better, even if it’s a regular person’s idea?Do you think Biden could have won the state?Yes, I do.What would it have taken?Not to be in Covid. We did no voter reg in the state. They [Republicans] did.And then we didn’t do any voter contact on the ground, and they did. I’m glad we saved lives, don’t get me wrong. But that affected our turnout in urban communities, it affected their turnout in rural communities. We did nothing.What do you think people in Ohio need to see from Biden in the next year, or even in the next three months, in order to ——They need the rescue package. They need to see that something is different, and it’s moving quickly. They need to see that they don’t have to worry every month on whether or not they’re going to get bailed out at the last minute on unemployment and eviction, even though it’s no fault of theirs that the pandemic happened to them, and that they happen to work on frontline jobs that people can’t go to now because the pandemic is raging. And that we’ve got their back.Do you think they care about legislation like that being bipartisan, or do you think they just want it fast?No. No. They want it fast. Nobody cares what happens in D.C. and who voted what. They just want it done, and we should provide that.Where is your head, about your options for 2022?We’re going to make the decision in the coming weeks. I’ve gotten a lot of encouragement today, with probably every Ohio Democrat giving me their opinion on what I should do, which has been really nice.Are both the governor’s race and the Senate race on the table?Yeah.Do you expect to be on the ballot, one way or the other?I hope so.If Jim Jordan decides to run [for Senate], it is highly likely he will win that primary. We recognize that the soul of our state is at stake, and that’s a motivation to all of us.What would your message be to a Democrat from outside Ohio — let’s say someone on the coast — who looks at the results from the last election and the results from Georgia this month, and says, “Why are we even bothering in these states where we’re getting our [rear ends] kicked when there are states that are moving our way?”I would say, there are four states that put Biden over, and they were won collectively by a little more than 100,000 votes. So, you ignore this, as a party, at your own peril. We won, decisively, the popular vote, but democracy is really at stake if we don’t pay attention to places like Ohio.You look at the Senate, you look at our long-term play, and we’ve still got a lot of work to do.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

#masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Capitol Riot FalloutVisual TimelineInside the SiegeNotable ArrestsThe Global Far RightCredit…Illustration by Hudson ChristieFeatureWhy Is Big Tech Policing Free Speech? Because the Government Isn’tDeplatforming President Trump showed that the First Amendment is broken — but not in the way his supporters think.Credit…Illustration by Hudson ChristieSupported byContinue reading the main storyJan. 26, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETIn the months leading up to the November election, the social media platform Parler attracted millions of new users by promising something competitors, increasingly, did not: unfettered free speech. “If you can say it on the streets of New York,” promised the company’s chief executive, John Matze, in a June CNBC interview, “you can say it on Parler.”The giants of social media — Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram — had more stringent rules. And while they still amplified huge amounts of far-right content, they had started using warning labels and deletions to clamp down on misinformation about Covid-19 and false claims of electoral fraud, including in posts by President Trump. Conservative figures, including Senator Ted Cruz, Eric Trump and Sean Hannity, grew increasingly critical of the sites and beckoned followers to join them on Parler, whose investors include the right-wing activist and heiress Rebekah Mercer. The format was like Twitter’s, but with only two clear rules: no criminal activity and no spam or bots. On Parler, you could say what you wanted without being, as conservatives complained, “silenced.”After the election, as Trump sought to overturn his defeat with a barrage of false claims, Matze made a classic First Amendment argument for letting the disinformation stand: More speech is better. Let the marketplace of ideas run without interference. “If you don’t censor, if you don’t — you just let him do what he wants, then the public can judge for themselves,” Matze said of Trump’s Twitter account on the New York Times podcast “Sway.” “Just sit there and say: ‘Hey, that’s what he said. What do you guys think?’”Matze was speaking to the host of “Sway,” Kara Swisher, on Jan. 7 — the day after Trump told supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol and fight congressional certification of the Electoral College vote. In the chaos that followed Trump’s speech, the American marketplace of ideas clearly failed. Protecting democracy, for Trump loyalists, had become a cry to subvert and even destroy it. And while Americans’ freedoms of speech and the press were vital to exposing this assault, they were also among its causes. Right-wing media helped seed destabilizing lies; elected officials helped them grow; and the democratizing power of social media spread them, steadily, from one node to the next.Social media sites effectively function as the public square where people debate the issues of the day. But the platforms are actually more like privately owned malls: They make and enforce rules to keep their spaces tolerable, and unlike the government, they’re not obligated to provide all the freedom of speech offered by the First Amendment. Like the bouncers at a bar, they are free to boot anyone or anything they consider disruptive. In the days after Jan. 6, they swiftly cracked down on whole channels and accounts associated with the violence. Reddit removed the r/DonaldTrump subreddit. YouTube tightened its policy on posting videos that called the outcome of the election into doubt. TikTok took down posts with hashtags like #stormthecapitol. Facebook indefinitely suspended Trump’s account, and Twitter — which, like Facebook, had spent years making some exceptions to its rules for the president — took his account away permanently.Parler, true to its stated principles, did none of this. But it had a weak point: It was dependent on other private companies to operate. In the days after the Capitol assault, Apple and Google removed Parler from their app stores. Then Amazon Web Services stopped hosting Parler, effectively cutting off its plumbing. Parler sued, but it had agreed, in its contract, not to host content that “may be harmful to others”; having promised the streets of New York, it was actually bound by the rules of a kindergarten playground. In a court filing, Amazon provided samples of about 100 posts it had notified Parler were in violation of its contract in the weeks before the Capitol assault. “Fry ’em up,” one said, with a list of targets that included Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. “We are coming for you and you will know it.” On Jan. 21, a judge denied Parler’s demand to reinstate Amazon’s services.It’s unlikely the volume of incendiary content on Parler could rival that of Twitter or Facebook, where groups had openly planned for Jan. 6. But Parler is the one that went dark. A platform built to challenge the oligopoly of its giant rivals was deplatformed by other giants, in a demonstration of how easily they, too, could block speech at will.Over all, the deplatforming after Jan. 6 had the feeling of an emergency response to a wave of lies nearly drowning our democracy. For years, many tech companies had invoked the American ethos of free speech while letting disinformation and incitement spread abroad, even when it led to terrible violence. Now they leapt to action as if, with America in trouble, American ideals no longer applied. Parler eventually turned to overseas web-hosting services to get back online.“We couldn’t beat you in the war of ideas and discourse, so we’re pulling your mic” — that’s how Archon Fung, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, put it, in expressing ambivalence about the moves. It seemed curiously easier to take on Trump and his allies in the wake of Democrats’ victories in the Senate runoffs in Georgia, giving them control of both chambers of Congress along with the White House. (Press officers for Twitter and Facebook said no election outcome influenced the companies’ decision.) And in setting an example that might be applied to the speech of the other groups — foreign dissidents, sex-worker activists, Black Lives Matter organizers — the deplatforming takes on an ominous cast.Fadi Quran, a campaign director for the global human rights group Avaaz, told me he, too, found the precedent worrying. “Although the steps may have been necessary to protect American lives against violence,” he said, “they are a reminder of the power big tech has over our information infrastructure. This infrastructure should be governed by deliberative democratic processes.”But what would those democratic processes be? Americans have a deep and abiding suspicion of letting the state regulate speech. At the moment, tech companies are filling the vacuum created by that fear. But do we really want to trust a handful of chief executives with policing spaces that have become essential parts of democratic discourse? We are uncomfortable with government doing it; we are uncomfortable with Silicon Valley doing it. But we are also uncomfortable with nobody doing it at all. This is a hard place to be — or, perhaps, two rocks and a hard place.When Twitter banned Trump, he found a seemingly unlikely defender: Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who criticized the decision as a “problematic” breach of the right to free speech. This wasn’t necessarily because Merkel considered the content of Trump’s speech defensible. The deplatforming troubled her because it came from a private company; instead, she said through a spokesman, the United States should have a law restricting online incitement, like the one Germany passed in 2017 to prevent the dissemination of hate speech and fake news stories.Among democracies, the United States stands out for its faith that free speech is the right from which all other freedoms flow. European countries are more apt to fight destabilizing lies by balancing free speech with other rights. It’s an approach informed by the history of fascism and the memory of how propaganda, lies and the scapegoating of minorities can sweep authoritarian leaders to power. Many nations shield themselves from such anti-pluralistic ideas. In Canada, it’s a criminal offense to publicly incite hatred “against any identifiable group.” South Africa prosecutes people for uttering certain racial slurs. A number of countries in Europe treat Nazism as a unique evil, making it a crime to deny the Holocaust.In the United States, laws like these surely wouldn’t survive Supreme Court review, given the current understanding of the First Amendment — an understanding that comes out of our country’s history and our own brushes with suppressing dissent. The First Amendment did not prevent the administration of John Adams from prosecuting more than a dozen newspaper editors for seditious libel or the Socialist and labor leader Eugene V. Debs from being convicted of sedition over a speech, before a peaceful crowd, opposing involvement in World War I. In 1951, the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Communist Party leaders for “conspiring” to advocate the overthrow of the government, though the evidence showed only that they had met to discuss their ideological beliefs.It wasn’t until the 1960s that the Supreme Court enduringly embraced the vision of the First Amendment expressed, decades earlier, in a dissent by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: “The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas.” In Brandenburg v. Ohio, that meant protecting the speech of a Ku Klux Klan leader at a 1964 rally, setting a high bar for punishing inflammatory words. Brandenburg “wildly overprotects free speech from any logical standpoint,” the University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey R. Stone points out. “But the court learned from experience to guard against a worse evil: the government using its power to silence its enemies.”This era’s concept of free speech still differed from today’s in one crucial way: The court was willing to press private entities to ensure they allowed different voices to be heard. As another University of Chicago law professor, Genevieve Lakier, wrote in a law-review article last year, a hallmark of the 1960s was the court’s “sensitivity to the threat that economic, social and political inequality posed” to public debate. As a result, the court sometimes required private property owners, like TV broadcasters, to grant access to speakers they wanted to keep out.But the court shifted again, Lakier says, toward interpreting the First Amendment “as a grant of almost total freedom” for private owners to decide who could speak through their outlets. In 1974, it struck down a Florida law requiring newspapers that criticized the character of political candidates to offer them space to reply. Chief Justice Warren Burger, in his opinion for the majority, recognized that barriers to entry in the newspaper market meant this placed the power to shape public opinion “in few hands.” But in his view, there was little the government could do about it..css-1xzcza9{list-style-type:disc;padding-inline-start:1em;}.css-c7gg1r{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:0.875rem;line-height:0.875rem;margin-bottom:15px;color:#121212 !important;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-c7gg1r{font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.9375rem;line-height:1.25rem;color:#333;margin-bottom:0.78125rem;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-rqynmc{font-size:1.0625rem;line-height:1.5rem;margin-bottom:0.9375rem;}}.css-rqynmc strong{font-weight:600;}.css-rqynmc em{font-style:italic;}.css-yoay6m{margin:0 auto 5px;font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-weight:700;font-size:1.125rem;line-height:1.3125rem;color:#121212;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-yoay6m{font-size:1.25rem;line-height:1.4375rem;}}.css-1dg6kl4{margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:15px;}.css-16ed7iq{width:100%;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-box-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;justify-content:center;padding:10px 0;background-color:white;}.css-pmm6ed{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}.css-pmm6ed > :not(:first-child){margin-left:5px;}.css-5gimkt{font-family:nyt-franklin,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size:0.8125rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-letter-spacing:0.03em;-moz-letter-spacing:0.03em;-ms-letter-spacing:0.03em;letter-spacing:0.03em;text-transform:uppercase;color:#333;}.css-5gimkt:after{content:’Collapse’;}.css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;-webkit-transform:rotate(180deg);-ms-transform:rotate(180deg);transform:rotate(180deg);}.css-eb027h{max-height:5000px;-webkit-transition:max-height 0.5s ease;transition:max-height 0.5s ease;}.css-6mllg9{-webkit-transition:all 0.5s ease;transition:all 0.5s ease;position:relative;opacity:0;}.css-6mllg9:before{content:”;background-image:linear-gradient(180deg,transparent,#ffffff);background-image:-webkit-linear-gradient(270deg,rgba(255,255,255,0),#ffffff);height:80px;width:100%;position:absolute;bottom:0px;pointer-events:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}#masthead-bar-one{display:none;}.css-1amoy78{background-color:white;border:1px solid #e2e2e2;width:calc(100% – 40px);max-width:600px;margin:1.5rem auto 1.9rem;padding:15px;box-sizing:border-box;}@media (min-width:740px){.css-1amoy78{padding:20px;width:100%;}}.css-1amoy78:focus{outline:1px solid #e2e2e2;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-rdoyk0{-webkit-transform:rotate(0deg);-ms-transform:rotate(0deg);transform:rotate(0deg);}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-eb027h{max-height:300px;overflow:hidden;-webkit-transition:none;transition:none;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-5gimkt:after{content:’See more’;}.css-1amoy78[data-truncated] .css-6mllg9{opacity:1;}.css-k9atqk{margin:0 auto;overflow:hidden;}.css-k9atqk strong{font-weight:700;}.css-k9atqk em{font-style:italic;}.css-k9atqk a{color:#326891;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ccd9e3;}.css-k9atqk a:visited{color:#333;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;border-bottom:1px solid #ddd;}.css-k9atqk a:hover{border-bottom:none;}Capitol Riot FalloutFrom Riot to ImpeachmentThe riot inside the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, followed a rally at which President Trump made an inflammatory speech to his supporters, questioning the results of the election. Here’s a look at what happened and the ongoing fallout:As this video shows, poor planning and a restive crowd encouraged by President Trump set the stage for the riot.A two hour period was crucial to turning the rally into the riot.Several Trump administration officials, including cabinet members Betsy DeVos and Elaine Chao, announced that they were stepping down as a result of the riot.Federal prosecutors have charged more than 70 people, including some who appeared in viral photos and videos of the riot. Officials expect to eventually charge hundreds of others.The House voted to impeach the president on charges of “inciting an insurrection” that led to the rampage by his supporters.Traditionally, conservatives have favored that libertarian approach: Let owners decide how their property is used. That’s changing now that they find their speech running afoul of tech-company rules. “Listen to me, America, we were wiped out,” the right-wing podcaster Dan Bongino, an investor in Parler, said in a Fox News interview after Amazon pulled its services. “And to all the geniuses out there, too, saying this is a private company, it’s not a First Amendment fight — really, it’s not?” The law that prevents the government from censoring speech should still apply, he said, because “these companies are more powerful than a de facto government.” You needn’t sympathize with him to see the hit Parler took as the modern equivalent of, in Burger’s terms, disliking one newspaper and taking the trouble to start your own, only to find no one will sell you ink to print it.One problem with private companies’ holding the ability to deplatform any speaker is that they’re in no way insulated from politics — from accusations of bias to advertiser boycotts to employee walkouts. Facebook is a business, driven by profit and with no legal obligation to explain its decisions the way a court or regulatory body would. Why, for example, hasn’t Facebook suspended the accounts of other leaders who have used the platform to spread lies and bolster their power, like the president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte? A spokesman said suspending Trump was “a response to a specific situation based on risk” — but so is every decision, and the risks can be just as high overseas.“It’s really media and public pressure that is the difference between Trump coming down and Duterte staying up,” says Evelyn Douek, a lecturer at Harvard Law School. “But the winds of public opinion are a terrible basis for free-speech decisions! Maybe it seems like it’s working right now. But in the longer run, how do you think unpopular dissidents and minorities will fare?”Deplatforming works, at least in the short term. There are indications that in the weeks after the platforms cleaned house — with Twitter suspending not just Trump but some 70,000 accounts, including many QAnon influencers — conversations about election fraud decreased significantly across several sites. After Facebook reintroduced a scoring system to promote news sources based on its judgment of their quality, the list of top performers, usually filled by hyperpartisan sources, featured CNN, NPR and local news outlets.But there’s no reason to think the healthier information climate will last. The very features that make social media so potent work both to the benefit and the detriment of democracy. YouTube, for instance, changed its recommendation algorithm in 2019, after researchers and reporters (including Kevin Roose at The New York Times) showed how it pushed some users toward radicalizing content. It’s also telling that, since the election, Facebook has stopped recommending civic groups for people to join. After Jan. 6, the researcher Aric Toler at Bellingcat surfaced a cheery video, automatically created by Facebook to promote its groups, which imposed the tagline “community means a lot” over images of a militia brandishing weapons and a photo of Robert Gieswein, who has since been charged in the assault on the Capitol. “I’m afraid that the technology has upended the possibility of a well-functioning, responsible speech environment,” the Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith says. “It used to be we had masses of speech in a reasonable range, and some extreme speech we could tolerate. Now we have a lot more extreme speech coming from lots of outlets and mouthpieces, and it’s more injurious and harder to regulate.”For decades, tech companies mostly responded to such criticism with proud free-speech absolutism. But external pressures, and the absence of any other force to contain users, gradually dragged them into the expensive and burdensome role of policing their domains. Facebook, for one, now has legions of low-paid workers reviewing posts flagged as harmful, a task gruesome enough that the company has agreed to pay $52 million in mental-health compensation to settle a lawsuit by more than 10,000 moderators.Perhaps because it’s so easy to question their motives, some executives have taken to begging for mercy. “We are facing something that feels impossible,” said Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, while being grilled by Congress last year. And Facebook’s founder and chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, has agreed with lawmakers that the company has too much power over speech. Two weeks after suspending Trump, Facebook said its new oversight board, an independent group of 20 international experts, would review the decision, with the power to make a binding ruling.Zuckerberg and Dorsey have also suggested openness to government regulation that would hold platforms to external standards. That might include, for example, requiring rules for slowing the spread of disinformation from known offenders. European lawmakers, with their more skeptical free-speech tradition (and lack of allegiance to American tech companies), have proposed requiring platforms to show how their recommendations work and giving users more control over them, as has been done in the realm of privacy. Steps like these seem better suited to combating misinformation than eliminating, as is often suggested, the immunity platforms currently enjoy from lawsuits, which directly affects only a narrow range of cases, mostly involving defamation.There is no consensus on a path forward, but there is precedent for some intervention. When radio and television radically altered the information landscape, Congress passed laws to foster competition, local control and public broadcasting. From the 1930s until the 1980s, anyone with a broadcast license had to operate in the “public interest” — and starting in 1949, that explicitly included exposing audiences to multiple points of view in policy debates. The court let the elected branches balance the rights of private ownership with the collective good of pluralism.This model coincided with relatively high levels of trust in media and low levels of political polarization. That arrangement has been rare in American history. It’s hard to imagine a return to it. But it’s worth remembering that radio and TV also induced fear and concern, and our democracy adapted and thrived. The First Amendment of the era aided us. The guarantee of free speech is for democracy; it is worth little, in the end, apart from it.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More