Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.—Buddha
Once words leave your mouth, or your fingers, the matter of who owns them becomes questionable and often it isn’t you.
I was amused recently when the driver of a car that was passing us could be seen gesturing rather vehemently while she talked, neither hand actually on the steering wheel as she passed. She was deep in conversation and obviously very passionate about the topic. While the visual observance was humorous, I was also just a bit concerned that neither of her hands were on the wheel as she zipped down the rather crowded street. The whole thing made me curious as to what she might be discussing, but that’s none of my business, right?
There is audio going viral of a certain well-known rapper who recently appeared on the television program Saturday Night Live. The rapper, whose ego is matched only by his narcissism, can be heard claiming that he is fifty percent more influential than any other person and then instructing those within immediate hearing distance, “don’t fuck with me!” Here’s the thing: the rapper was not in public space at the time the words were spoken. He was behind a closed door with his team. He did not know he was being recorded, but not the rantings of this petulant child are scattered across the Internet. There’s no getting them back. You can hear the audio here.
We tend to not give a great deal of thought to how important our words might be, and we almost never give any consideration to who owns the conversations we have, whether face to face or online. When texting your significant other that they need to purchase milk on their way home, one typically doesn’t consider that message profound enough to warrant any type of legal protection. The words are just out there, no big deal.
Consider, however, that one is a songwriter or a scriptwriter swapping ideas with a writing partner. Concepts and phrases jump back and forth between the two, and then, months later, one discovers that the other has used pieces of that conversation in a script or a song without crediting the partner. The next text is likely to be to a lawyer. However, one might ask why one set of words is protected more than the other.
This isn’t a new conversation, actually. I remember while I was still in college, 40 or 50 eons ago, there being a significant lawsuit over who owned letters in a correspondence between a now-famous author and a friend. Both subjects were deceased and the author’s family wanted the letters back because they contained information regarding the influences and inspirations and state of mind the author had while writing different books. The family of the friend did not want to let them go, however, claiming that once the author had mailed the letters they were no longer his (which is standard case law).
So, when you open your mouth or send a message to a friend, regardless of the medium, who owns that information and who has a right to access that information, especially if you’re not around to access it yourself.?
That question is at the core of the FBI’s request, and subsequent court order, for Apple to create software that would undo the encryption on the phone used by one of the shooters in a terrorist act last December. The stance taken by Apple, and vehemently argued by CEO Tim Cook, is that you own the words you type, and the communication you engage through your phone. To that end, Apple has natively encrypted everything on their iPhone with a level of security that even Apple itself cannot hack.
However, laws allow that any communication made in relation to or during the commission of a crime can be used to prosecute those who committed that crime and, especially in the case of what would be considered terrorist activities, to prevent additional crimes from being committed. Therefore, the FBI, with the court’s backing, they have a right to access the information on that phone.
Remember that line in the list of Miranda rights that says, “You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to not remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” All of your words, any of your words, can be used against you. If your words can be used against you, do you still own them?
At the same time, those seemingly innocent conversations can save one a lot of trouble. Let’s go back to that text about buying milk on the way home. That text is essentially creating an alibi for where your significant other goes between work and home. Should a crime be committed in the same area about the same time, that text could potentially help exonerate your partner, but only if you share it. One has to let go of the strict possession of that message.
Even words that we copyright, such as those I’m typing now, we don’t fully own. Copyright law allows for “acceptable use” by third parties, use that does not require my permission. My words can end up used in ways I did not intend and cannot control. In fact, I might never know the extent to which my words are being used out of context.
Here’s the frightening fact: one words leave your brain, regardless of medium, you lose control of those words, where they go, how they are used, and whom they influence. Privacy, as much as we may value it, is an illusion. And words we don’t control can get us into trouble.
Last example: I may tell Kat that I am shooting two people this evening. She understands those words to mean that I’m taking pictures later today. She goes to the salon, then, and casually mentions to one of her co-workers that I am shooting two people this evening. A guest who doesn’t know me becomes alarmed and notifies police. Why? I am shooting two people this evening. Doesn’t that sound like something the police needs to know?
My words, but I don’t own them.
Maybe, just maybe, we should give a bit more thought to our words before we allow them to escape our grasp.
Protesting For The Right To Protest
One of the primary tenets of the First Amendment of the US Constitution is the right to “peacefully assemble,” re. the right to protest. It has been an anchor in the right to free speech and has been presented to us as one of the underlying differences between the US and other countries. The fact that we allow our citizens to protest is supposed to be one of the things that make us better than anyone else.
Well, as of Monday, April 15, 2024, you can pretty much toss that one in the can. The Supreme Court of the United States, in its endless bafflement, ruled against the First Amendment in rejecting an appeal from DeRay Mckesson in a case that stems from a 2016 protest over the police killing of a Black man in Baton Rouge. What the court appears to have said is that the person who organizes a protest is responsible for the actions of the people participating in the protest.
There are some caveats. First, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned lower courts to “not read anything” into the decision. In other words, by rejecting this particular case the court does not rule out the possibility that it might take up the full matter at a later date. Second, it is important to realize that in rejecting the case, justices did not hear full arguments on the matter, which would give the matter the weight of precedence in subsequent cases.
However, the decision is still troubling. The decision will most definitely hold some influence over lower courts. Yet another Pandora’s Box has been opened (how many of those damn boxes does Pandora have?).
What’s all the fuss, Gus? Back in 2016 (remember 2016?), a man named DeRay Mckesson organized a protest in Louisiana after police killed a black man in Baton Rouge. During that protest, someone unidentified threw a “rock-like object” and it hit an officer. Since the rock thrower couldn’t be identified, the officer, hiding behind the moniker John Doe, decided to sue Mckesson for not controlling the protest he instigated. The initial federal court threw out the suit, which was, unquestionably in my opinion, the correct decision. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to pick it back up because Mckesson didn’t lead the protest onto the highway, resulting in a standoff with police and the injury to the officer.
If this is going to be the case, someone let that former president know that he is now on the hook for every action taken by protestors on January 6, since he organized that melee. It’s all his fault.
More seriously, though, we have to look at this decision as a warning to anyone who might consider organizing future protests. How the fuck are you supposed to “control” a crowd who is righteously angry? Do you remember what was going on in 2016? We were finally standing up to the fact that people of color were being indiscriminately murdered by police! There was every reason in the world to protest and every reason to exhibit anger as part of those protests.
So, what happens when the Supreme Court does something really stupid like take away the right to gender-affirming care for everyone, not just trans kids in Ohio? Is that topic safe to protest? Can we get everyone on the highway? What happens this fall when Republican Governors mobilize the National Guard because they don’t like the way the elections go? Is that going to be safe to protest? What about when the Supreme Court overturns the January 6 convictions on a technicality? Are we safe to protest that fatality of justice?
The nature of protests is that the more people participating, the more seriously the protest is taken. However, the more people protesting, the more likely it is that someone is going to misbehave, often out of anger at a gross miscarriage of justice and the fear that their opinion is not being heard by those in power. The more government leaders attempt to shut down protests, as they did the Black Lives Matter protests of 2016, the more angry protestors are going to be. If elected leaders aren’t going to pay attention to their constituents through the manners prescribed by law, then protestors are more likely to resort to more extreme manners of communication.
Did we learn nothing in history class?
We need to protect the right to protest. When those we’ve elected to uphold the law take it upon themselves to ignore the law, protest may become the only way we have of solving the problem.
Share this:
Like this: