Daily Archives: March 16, 2015

Mexico journalist who revealed first lady mansion fired

Mexico City (AFP) - The firing of one of Mexico's most famous journalists, who revealed the first lady's controversial mansion, sparked outrage Monday among supporters who consider her sacking an attack on press freedom.

Mexicans awoke without the familiar morning voice of broadcaster Carmen Aristegui after MVS Radio fired her late Sunday, following a public feud with her employer over the dismissal of two of her investigative reporters.

The top-rated, 51-year-old journalist became the main trending topic on Twitter in Mexico, with supporters calling on users to unfollow MVS's account.

Aristegui, who also works for CNN's Spanish-language channel, showed up Monday in front of MVS's Mexico City headquarters, where she was greeted by a dozen cheering supporters.

Vowing to fight back, she warned that her lawyers said her firing was wrong and a violation of freedom of speech.

Aristegui said her country is "seeing an authoritarian wind and an ominous sign of something that we have to avoid."

"This team of journalists is committed to fighting for freedom of speech," she said, adding that her firing appeared to have been planned well in advance, "with much resources and much power."

Denying it was curbing freedom of speech, MVS said it parted ways with Aristegui because it could not tolerate her "conditions and ultimatums" after she demanded her fired colleagues' reinstatement.

MVS said the two journalists had been fired for using the company's name without permission in their participation in MexicoLeaks, a website created by civic groups and other media outlets to receive leaked documents related to corruption.

Read the original post:
Mexico journalist who revealed first lady mansion fired

In a recent post, co-blogger Eugene Kontorovich criticizes Israels law restricting the publication of public opinion polls in the last few days before an election. I largely agree with Eugenes critique. The Israeli law (and similar legislation in many other countries) is an unjust infringement on freedom of speech.

But Eugene does not address an important possible defense of these types of laws. Late preelection polls could exacerbate the pernicious bandwagon effect, which leads some voters to support a given candidate or party merely because it seems likely to win. I discussed bandwagon voting in this 2012 post:

A small but significant number of swing voters tend to support whichever side seems to be winning, partly because they want to be identified with a winner and partly because of a sense that whoever seems to be winning might well be the best person for the job for that very reason. Bandwagon voters are unlikely to make a decisive difference in an election where one side has an overwhelming edge to begin with. But they can be decisive in a closer race. They can also increase the winners margin of victory, thereby adding to the perceived extent of his mandate. For these reasons, candidates and their supporters routinely project greater optimism than they really feel.

The bandwagon effect is an inversion of the normative ideal of democracy. Instead of choosing the winner based on their perception of what would best serve the public interest, bandwagon voters modify their perception of the public interest based on who they think is likely to win. Worse, these voters are often among the key swing voters who decide electoral outcomes.

Well-informed voters and those with strong views on political issues are unlikely to change their minds because of the bandwagon effect. But political ignorance is widespread, and swing voters (the ones most likely to change their intentions at the last minute) are, on average, considerably more ignorant that those with stronger partisan commitments.

Restricting publication of last-minute polling results could potentially prevent relatively ignorant swing voters from deciding who to support for based on bandwagon effects, and thereby lead them to consider more substantive reasons for choosing one party over the others. In Chapter 2 of my book on political ignorance, I discuss some situations where voter ignorance might actually have beneficial results. Perhaps ignorance of late preelection polling results might be another such case.

But to be really effective, such laws would probably have to ban publication of polling results for many weeks prior to the election, not just the last few days. Polls often create a strong impression of who the likely winner weeks or even months before election day. That approach, of course, would restrict freedom of speech far more than current Israeli does.

Even if polling publication restrictions could diminish bandwagon voting, it is not clear that the voters diverted from bandwagoning would choose better-informed reasons for voting. They might instead rely on a variety of other dubious and often misleading heuristics and information shortcuts. Sadly, the bandwagon effect is just one of many negative consequences of widespread political ignorance. We are unlikely to solve the problem by giving government more power to restrict the flow of supposedly harmful information to the public.

Moreover, as Eugene points out, late polls can sometimes provide valuable information to better-informed voters. In a multi-party system like Israels, the decision to vote for a particular party reasonably depends not just on the partys own merits, but on the potential impact of an increase in that partys support for the configuration of a coalition government. And that effect, in turn, often depends on the extent of support for other parties. For example, a given Israeli voter might be willing to support Party X if giving that party an extra seat in the Knesset is likely to lead to a center-left coalition government, but not if it is more likely to lead to a center-right coalition. Admittedly, only unusually well-informed voters are likely to make such careful calculations effectively. But such people can sometimes make a difference in a close election. And if the election is not close, then there is also less need to worry about harmful effects of bandwagon voting.

Of course, one can try to justify restricting preelection polling not on the grounds that it prevents bandwagon effects, but because some polling results are biased or even deliberately manipulated to support one party or candidate. But the same can be said for a wide range of other political information and preelection commentary by pundits, political activists, and the media. If the danger of bias and manipulation justifies censoring publication of preelection polling results, it can easily justify censorship of most other types of political speech during election season, as well.

Originally posted here:
Volokh Conspiracy: Can laws restricting publication of preelection poll results reduce the negative effects of ...

Christian Leuprecht is associate dean and associate professor at the Royal Military College of Canada, affiliated with Queens University.

In debating the federal governments anti-terrorism legislation, Bill C-51, we would do well to remember that there is a reason even Pierre Trudeau insisted on protecting freedom of expression rather than freedom of speech in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: unlike the United States, there was a broad consensus that we did not want to afford neo-Nazis constitutional protection to march through Jewish neighbourhoods (National Socialist Party of America vs. Village of Skokie, 1977). Similarly, we do not want salafist Jihadists abusing their adulterated interpretation of Islam to lure the unsuspecting back to the moral ice age.

Democracies, by definition, cherish the Lockean principle of limited state. Its intervention needs to be justified in an effort to advance freedom (and, subsequently, equality and justice). Life is the ultimate human right: It is difficult to enjoy your freedom when you are dead. No one knew that better than John Locke himself: He fled Oxford fearing for his life, only to return from his Dutch refuge on the same ship as William of Orange.

Far from creating a police state, C-51 is merely getting Canada caught up to the rest of the civilized world. Living thousands of miles from the worlds hotspots, Canadians have until lately enjoyed the privilege of being able to bury their heads in the sand. But globalization has made Canada as vulnerable to violent extremism as our allies. The difference is that most of them have long had in place the provisions in C-51 that have caused such heated debate in Canada: measures of detention that are clearly distinct from arrest, risk-diminishment mandates for security intelligence, more robust provisions to stop people from boarding planes, and very robust provisions for sharing data.

While controversy on C-51 abounds, all critics agree on one fundamental question: How can the government assure me that my rights and freedoms have not been violated? The question is hardly new. Roman satirist Juvenal famously probed: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who is watching the watchers? The government points to the Security Intelligence Review Committee. The problem with SIRC is it has (almost no) jurisdiction beyond the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

First, C-51 should extend SIRCs remit to be able to follow intelligence that originated with CSIS throughout the Canadian security food chain. For example, within the RCMP, SIRC should be able to follow the entire intelligence to evidence thread. To be clear: SIRC should not have purview over entire RCMP investigations that were based on or involve CSIS evidence. SIRCs sole responsibility should be the ability to follow CSIS intelligence throughout federal agencies to ensure that intelligence is handled in accordance with the law and the Constitution.

Second, the SIRC reporting process needs to be sped up. Many of SIRCs reports become public domain, but it takes a couple of years. Due to the steps involved, that glacial pace is unlikely to change. In the interim, why not follow the example of the United Kingdom: clear select members of the opposition to read SIRCs report (and the CSE Inspector Generals, for that matter).

The precedent for clearing select members of the opposition was set during the Afghan detainee debate. Since parliamentary procedure would prohibit this being done in committee, the opposition instead forwards to the Prime Minister a list of names from which the Prime Minister picks at his or her discretion. Rather than having to trust the Prime Minister, Canadians would sleep better if, for example, former Solicitor General Wayne Easter and well-versed defence critic and lawyer Jack Harris had a chance to read these reports in a timely fashion and corroborate that they are satisfied that Canadians rights and freedoms had, indeed, not been violated.

And by virtue of being sworn in as Privy Councillors, the opposition members privy to the reports would never be able to talk about them in public, or Question Period, anyway. So, the risk to the government of sharing this information is negligible compared to the benefits of added oversight.

Compared to standing up a whole new review bureaucracy or vastly expanding the scope of existing ones, the legislative fix for both these remedies would be relatively easy and cost little or no treasure.

Read this article:
Done right, C-51 can balance freedom and security