 |
|
|
|||||
As the founder, chair, and CEO of the Exceptional Women Alliance, I am fortunate to be surrounded by extraordinary female business leaders. Our purpose is to empower each other through peer mentorship that provides personal and professional fulfillment within this unique sisterhood. Joanna Massey, PhD, is one of those business leaders, and she is not afraid to challenge the status quo. She is a corporate board director, Fortune 500 executive, and expert in corporate governance and crisis communications. With advanced degrees in business, law, and psychology, she brings a unique, interdisciplinary perspective to one of the most pressing issues of our time: how to protect free speech in the digital age without sacrificing public safety and democracy. Q: You wrote a policy paper for Cornell Law School on regulating free speech. What do people get wrong about the First Amendment? Massey: In the United States, you can say what you want, but you are still responsible for the damage your words do. Thats the part people forget. The First Amendment protects your right to speak freely without the government punishing you. It doesnt protect you from the consequences of what you sayor from being banned by private-sector businesses, like Facebook, Twitter/X, and TikTok. They set their own rules, and if you break them, you deal with the penalties. Q: You say in your work that Americans misunderstand what liberty means. Can you explain? Massey: Liberty was never meant to be limitless. Our founding fathersThomas Jefferson and James Madison, among othersbelieved that freedom had to be balanced with responsibility. The Constitution wasnt written to give one person the right to dominate another. It protects us from the government, but it also protects us from each other. So, when you spew hate online because you dont like how I look, who I love, or what I believe, that isnt exercising your rights. Its infringing on mine. Q: So how do we define the line between free expression and harmful speech today? Massey: Right now, our speech laws focus on intent. The courts want to know, Did you mean to incite violence? Who is going to say yes to that? Its also an outdated standard because the issue today is not the intent behind attacking an individual or group of peopleit is the cumulative impact of the speech. One cigarette doesnt cause cancer, but cumulatively, secondhand smoke doeswhich is why we regulate it. Your freedom to smoke stops when it endangers me. Now, apply that to hatred. One racial slur doesnt cause a riot, but unchecked and repeated hate does. Based on our Constitutional rights, your freedom to spew hate stops when it takes away my ability to live safely and freely. A good example is the false rumors that spread in 2024 about Haitian immigrants in a small Ohio town. Even after officials and business leaders debunked the lies, threats escalated until schools closed, offices shut down, and the entire community was destabilized. Speech today doesnt live in isolationextremism unfolds through a steady stream of posts, shares, and content that doesnt break current laws but collectively causes harm. Q: Why is social media dividing people? Massey: Human beings are biologically hardwired for survival, and our brains dont know the difference between a tiger and a tweet. When someone criticizes our beliefs or lifestyle, our brain reacts as if we are under physical attackby banding together, retreating into tribes, and protecting our side as if our lives depend on it. Platforms give us endless ways to find our people and feel safe inside bubbles that affirm our beliefs. Those algorithms are also programmed to shut out dissenting views and lifestyles, so we dont experience other perspectives in a neutral way. Q: Youve coined the term mass incitement. What does that mean? Massey: Mass incitement happens when platforms or public figures repeatedly amplify false or inflammatory content until millions are echoing it, creating a collective force that makes violence or discrimination more likely. Q: Some say users just need to be more skeptical about the media they consume. But is the fix that simple? Massey: That is a convenient argument, but it misses the point. The real problem is impact. You cannot exercise your rights by infringing on minethat runs counter to the promises of the Constitution. Up until now, we have been blaming our division on politics, but the problem isnt red (Republican) or blue (Democrat). Its green (money). Social media companies make money every time we click, and people stay engaged longer when theyre upset. Thats why the algorithms promote outrage, not accuracy. These platforms arent neutral. Theyre profiting from our disagreements. We regulate television, radio, and phone lines to protect the public interestbut somehow, weve left algorithms completely unchecked. That legal void is fueling chaos. Q: What reforms would actually make a difference? Massey: The answer is modernizing our laws to reflect the reality of mass incitement. That means updating FCC authority, reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and holding social platforms accountable the same way we do other producers of products that cause cumulative, foreseeable harm. Q: Free speech absolutists say any regulation is a threat to democracy. How do you respond to that? Massey The real threat to democracy is weaponized speech. Misinformation fuels division and violence, hate speech becomes normalized, and society starts to break down. So, calling hate speech free speech is like calling an assault self-expression. The Constitution protects us from harm, including the harms suffered by victims of hate speech. We have to reconcile that with how much protection hate speech is given today. The answer is to create guardrails that keep speech free and fair. We banned cigarette ads on TV. We rated movies. We censored shock jocks. And the First Amendment survived all of it. It will survive hate speech regulation, as well. Larraine Segil is founder, chair, and CEO of The Exceptional Women Alliance.
Category:
E-Commerce
Rivian is recalling 24,214 R1S and R1T electric vehicles due to a software defect that may cause its hands-free Highway Assist system to misidentify lead vehicles, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said on Friday. The issue affects certain 2025 Rivian vehicles running an older software version in the United States, the NHTSA said. Rivian has issued an over-the-air software update to fix the problem, the NHTSA added. The defect was identified after an incident involving a 2025 R1S model vehicle, where the system misclassified a low-speed vehicle and the driver failed to maintain control. Automakers have increasingly competed to roll out advanced driver-assistance features like lane-keep assist and adaptive cruise control. Rivian has also been working on hands-free and “eyes-off” systems as part of its push into autonomous driving technology. Preetika Parashuraman and Rajveer Singh Pardesi, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer weathered backlash from Democrats earlier this year when he voted with Republicans to keep the government open. But hes now willing to risk a shutdown at the end of the month if Republicans dont accede to Democratic demands. Schumer says he and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries are united in opposing any legislation that doesnt include key health care provisions and a commitment not to roll them back. He argues that the country is in a different place than it was in March, when he vigorously argued against a shutdown, and he says he believes Republicans and President Donald Trump will be held responsible if they dont negotiate a bipartisan deal. Things have changed since the March vote, Schumer said in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday. He said Republicans have since passed Trumps massive tax breaks and spending cuts legislation, which trimmed Medicaid and other government programs, and Democrats are now unified unlike in March, when he voted with Republicans and Jeffries voted against the legislation to fund the government. A shutdown, Schumer said, wouldnt necessarily worsen an environment in which Trump is already challenging the authority of Congress. It will get worse with or without it, because Trump is lawless, Schumer said. When could a shutdown happen? Schumers threat comes as Republicans are considering a short-term stopgap spending measure to avoid a Sept. 30 shutdown and as Democrats face what most see as two tough choices if the parties cant negotiate a deal vote with Republicans to keep the government open or let it close indefinitely with no clear exit plan. It also comes amid worsening partisan tensions in the Senate, where negotiations between the two parties over the confirmation process broke down for a second time on Thursday and Republicans are changing Senate rules to get around Democratic objections to almost all of Trump’s nominees. Democrats are also fuming over the Trump administrations decision to unilaterally claw back $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid just as negotiations over the spending deadline were getting underway in late August. What Republicans have to say Republicans say that Democrats clearly will be to blame if they dont vote to keep the government open. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in an interview with Punchbowl News on Thursday that he believes Democrats see it as politically advantageous to have a shutdown. But they dont have a good reason to do it, Thune said in the interview. “And I dont intend to give them a good reason to do it. Thune has repeatedly said that Schumer needs to approach Republicans with a specific proposal on health care, including an extension of expanded government tax credits for many Americans who get their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act. Some Republicans are open to extending those credits before they expire at the end of the year, but Thune has indicated that he is unlikely to add an extension to a short-term spending bill, instead favoring a clean stopgap for several weeks without any divisive issues while Congress finishes its budget legislation. Schumer said he believes his caucus is ready to oppose the stopgap measure if Republicans don’t negotiate it with Democrats. I think the overwhelming majority of our caucus, with a few exceptions, and same with the House, would vote against that,” he said. Less realistic is Democrats demand that Republicans roll back Medicaid cuts enacted in their tax breaks and spending cuts legislation this summer, what Trump called his big, beautiful bill. Schumer said Democrats also want Republicans to commit that the White House wont take back money they have negotiated and Congress has approved after Republicans pushed through a $9 billion cut requested by the White House in July and Trump blocked the additional foreign aid money in August. How do you pass an appropriations bill and let them undo it down the road? Schumer said. What would a shutdown mean? Congress is facing the funding deadline Sept. 30 because Republicans and Democrats are still working out their differences on several annual budget bills. Intractable partisan differences on an increasing number of issues have stalled those individual bills in recent years, forcing lawmakers to pass one large omnibus package at the end of the year or simply vote to continue current spending. A shutdown means federal agencies will stop all actions deemed non-essential, and millions of federal employees, including members of the military, wont receive paychecks. The most recent shutdown and the longest ever was during Trump’s first term in 2018 and into 2019, when he demanded money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall. It lasted 35 days. Schumers move to support the spending legislation in March put him in the rare position of bucking his partys base. He said then that of two bad options, a partial government shutdown was worse because it would give Trump even more control to lay off workers and there would be no off-ramp to get out of it. I think people realize its a tough choice, he said. He faced massive backlash from within the party after the vote, with some activists calling on him to resign. Jeffries temporarily distanced himself from his New York colleague, saying in a statement immediately after Schumers vote that House Democrats will not be complicit. The majority of Senate Democrats also voted against the GOP spending legislation. This time, though, Schumer is in lockstep with Jeffries and in messaging within his caucus. In Democrats closed-door lunch Wednesday, he shared polling that he said suggested most Americans would blame Trump, not Democrats, for a shutdown. I did what I thought was right in March, Schumer said. Its a different situation now than then. Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||