A14| Friday, August 16, 2019 ***** THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
Net ‘Censorship’ and Community Standards
In a week in which our nation is
wondering how to stop hateful
speech online, Dennis Prager
(“Don’t Let Google Get Away With
Censorship,” op-ed, Aug. 7) com-
plains about platforms applying
their community standards when
filtering videos and other content
created by users.
Mr. Prager’s complaint, “Our vid-
eos are restricted only because they
are conservative,” is an accusation
that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As
he admits, his videos aren’t being
removed by YouTube. About 10% of
his videos are rated as “teen” or
“mature,” and so are not shown to
the 1.5% of YouTube users who’ve
chosen “restricted” mode. YouTube
applies these ratings to videos
whose content is potentially upset-
ting to children, so parents can de-
cide whether their kids see videos
dealing with topics like murder,
slavery or abortion.
Nor are Mr. Prager’s videos tar-
geted because of his conservative
views. Videos from liberal YouTube
channels Democracy Now and The
Daily Show are restricted four times
more often than Mr. Prager’s videos.
Even History Channel videos are five
times more restricted than his.
Dennis Prager has built a highly
successful enterprise on YouTube,
with over 2.2 million subscribers.
Rather than complain that YouTube
is “censoring” him, he should stick
to his conservative values and ap-
plaud the efforts of platforms to
help parents restrict what their chil-
dren see online.
STEVEDELBIANCO
President, NetChoice
McLean, Va.As a libertarian I am sympathetic
to Mr. Prager’s plight, but I disagree
with his assertion that Google is ob-
ligated to publish his seminars. As a
private company Google is not.
Moreover, nowhere in Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act
(designed to encourage the growth
of the internet and the vibrant mar-
ketplace of ideas) is it explicitly
stated that providers such as Google
will be proscribed from “censoring”
material. Mr. Prager states that the
exemption from liability law under
Section 230 implies a compact where
in return for this liability exemption
Congress expected internet providerssuch as Google to refrain from cen-
sorship, in whole or in part. Yet this
is purely Mr. Prager’s speculation. It
is certainly not explicitly stated in
Section 230.
Perhaps John Marshall’s quote
from the landmarkMadison v. Mar-
bury(1803) is relevant here. I para-
phrase: “Congress makes the laws;
the judiciary says what the law is.”
I’m afraid Mr. Prager is going to
have to seek the assistance of the ju-
diciary to clarify what, in fact, Sec-
tion 230 really says and whether in
fact there is an implicit compact
agreement between Congress and
Google which has been violated by
Google, as Mr. Prager so states.
BRUCEKLEINMAN
Oak Park, Ill.New-media censorship is common-
place and unpredictable, as we, the
mothers of special-needs children,
have learned. Facebook recently took
down a page for parents of special-
needs children on which we have
long participated. The page con-
nected literally thousands of (often
marginalized) participants from all
over the world. No explanation was
given. No notice to members. As if it
were some kind of dissident group in
an authoritarian state, the page dis-
appeared, with not a word to family
or neighbors and not even a “closed
by FB” sign left on the door.
Rumors about the reasons for its
demise circulated on a topically re-
lated group page. One of us managed
to identify and contact a former
moderator of our group, who said
that the page was disabled by FB
“due to an unknown violation of the
new group quality standards.” The
moderator said she had requested a
review and was notified that she
would be entering “an appeals pro-
cess,” whatever that means. Kafka
couldn’t have written it better.
If a group of 8,000, mostly moms
discussing how to help their children
can vanish with nary an explanation
nor a peep of mass protest—after all,
how would we even find each other
to complain?—Mr. Prager is certainly
right to decry “some of the most
dangerous attacks on free speech in
American history.”
NICOLEDAVIDCHANNING
Knoxville, Tenn.
JILLROSENFELDLAGATTUTA
New Canaan, Conn.LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letters intended for publication should
be addressed to: The Editor, 1211 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,
or emailed to [email protected]. Please
include your city and state. All letters
are subject to editing, and unpublished
letters can be neither acknowledged nor
returned.
“Alternately, for those on a budget,
we can offer perpetual middle-age.”THE WALL STREET JOURNALPepper ...
And SaltThe Case for an Independent Federal Reserve
Regarding Paul Volcker, Alan
Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet
Yellen's “America Needs an Indepen-
dent Fed” (op-ed, Aug. 6): So long as
the Fed sticks to central banking, i.e.,
monetizing a portion of the national
debt with monetary base, it can ex-
pect to be an independent expert
agency.
However, when it expands its man-
date into credit allocation, as it has
since 2008, it becomes political and
jeopardizes its independence.
Since 2008 the Fed has paid inter-
est on excess reserves and has pur-
chases trillions of dollars of mort-
gages and long-term Treasurys. In so
doing, it acts as a financial intermedi-
ary. If the Fed buys home mortgages,
why not Social Security bonds, or
green-energy bonds? How many
funds should be allocated to these
and other activities should be de-
cided by Congress or the market, not
by the Fed.
The maturity structure of the na-tional debt is an important decision,
made by the Treasury within the pa-
rameters set by Congress. By replac-
ing long-term Treasurys with zero-
maturity excess reserves, the Fed has
in effect also usurped this function of
the Treasury.
EM.PROF.J.HUSTONMCCULLOCH
Ohio State University
New YorkThe last time I read the Constitu-
tion there were only three branches
of government—and the Federal Re-
serve wasn’t one of them. I’m also
pretty sure the Constitution doesn’t
provide for any “independent agen-
cies”—though it does provide a
means of establishing a fourth
branch of government if Congress
(and the people) really want it. Until
then, the Fed will remain part of the
executive branch, like all the other
federal agencies.
CHRISCARDIFF,
Alexandria, Va.Time to Pull the Plug on War in Afghanistan
While I have the utmost respect
for Gen. David Petraeus, I couldn’t
disagree with him and co-author
Vance Serchuk more (“The U.S. Aban-
doned Iraq. Don’t Repeat History in
Afghanistan,” op-ed, Aug. 10).
As an Army physician at Walter
Reed National Military Medical Cen-
ter from 2005-10, I witnessed first
hand the carnage of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, and I can attest the
cost in blood and treasure is too
great. The decision to leave Iraq was
indeed unwise, but the civil war that
occurred between Baathist Sunnis
and majority Shiites was precipitated
by U.S. involvement.
The situation in Afghanistan
seems to be more like that of Viet-
nam, where the U.S.-backed forces
in the South were corrupt and un-
motivated. If the Afghan govern-
ment is unwilling or unable to stand
up to the Taliban after almost 20
years of American support, it will
never be ready. I don’t think our
continued involvement is worth one
more dead or wounded American
service member.
JASONACEVEDO,M.D.
Abilene, TexasAs important as keeping the Amer-
ican people safe from terrorism is,
terrorism is only one problem among
many that the U.S. must confront and
manage.
It’s time for Washington to make
hard choices about policy, resource
allocation and investment.
BRIG.GEN.DONHARVEL (USAF,RET.)
Fountain Hills, Ariz.For the life of me, I can’t under-
stand why anyone is seriously advo-
cating “peace” with the Taliban.
MICHAELJ.MCPHERSON
New YorkSenators File an Enemy-of-the-Court Brief
W
hen liberals worry about losing a
major Supreme Court case, they
usually make appeals to the Court’s
“legitimacy.” This is intended
to attract Chief Justice John
Roberts by suggesting that a
conservative outcome would
damage the institution’s repu-
tation. The ritual is disingen-
uous but usually subtle.
Five Democratic Senators have had it with
subtle. In a remarkable and threatening amicus
brief, Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Rich-
ard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin and Kirsten
Gillibrand all but tell the Justices that they’ll
retaliate politically if the Court doesn’t do what
they say in a Second Amendment case.
“The Supreme Court is not well,” they tell
the Justices in what is really an enemy-of-the-
Court brief. “Perhaps the Court can heal itself
before the public demands it be ‘restructured
in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”
By “restructured,” they mean packed with new
Justices by a Democratic President and Senate
after they kill the filibuster.
The case involves a challenge to a New York
City law that banned licensed gun owners from
bringing handguns outside the city even if a
gun is unloaded and locked in a container sepa-
rate from its ammunition. The Court accepted
the case in January. Fearing a Supreme Court
defeat, New York softened the restrictions and
in July asked the Court to dismiss the case as
moot. The Justices are scheduled to consider
that question Oct. 1. The plaintiffs say the regu-
lations are still unconstitutional.
The five progressive Senators are furious
the Justices may rule on the case though the
most constitutionally dubious provisions have
been repealed. Their amicus brief claims the
Court would be deciding a “hypothetical” issue.
Their real fear is that the Court will clarify its
Second Amendment jurisprudence and broaden
protections for gun ownership.
As the left-wing website ThinkProgress
notes with approval, the brief amounts to a
“declaration of war” against the conservative
Justices that essentially describes the Supreme
Court as “dominated by political hacks selected
by the Federalist Society.”
The not-so-amicus brief attacks the Feder-
alist Society by name five times, as if the net-
work of bookish conservative-leaning stu-
dents and lawyers is responsible for swinging
elections. It posits darkly that “massive po-
litical spending and secrecy
are rarely a salubrious com-
bination.” This echoes Sen.
Whitehouse’s previous effort
to force anyone filing amicus
briefs to disclose who
funded it.
The Federalist Society doesn’t file amicus
briefs. Its efforts are devoted to educational
events and debates on public policy and law,
and they aren’t secret. Liberals are welcome.
If Mr. Whitehouse were interested in learning
about opposing views, he might be too. Unlike
at other campus groups, no one is shouted
down at Federalist Society events.
The Senators also paint the conservative Jus-
tices as monolithic though the recent term saw
significant diversity on the Court’s right. New
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has formed an alliance
of sorts with Chief Justice Roberts while Justice
Neil Gorsuch sometimes joined the four liberals.
There were more decisions with a majority of
four liberals and one conservative—10—than
there were with five conservatives. The four lib-
erals formed a far more monolithic block.
The Senators darkly cite “a multimillion-
dollar advertising campaign to shape this
Court’s composition,” as if liberals don’t and
won’t run advertisements when Democratic
Presidents nominate judges. They say that 73
decisions with a conservative majority “con-
cerned interests important to the big funders,
corporate influencers and political base of
the Republican Party” and add that it “if it
turns out that these anonymous donor inter-
ests” benefit from those decisions then “it
bodes very poorly for the Court.” This is rank
demagoguery.
iii
This is a dramatic escalation in the Su-
preme Court wars, and it doesn’t come from
the right. Prominent liberals have gone in the
blink of an eye from agonizing over the Court’s
legitimacy in the hope of swaying John Roberts
to openly assailing the Justices themselves as
corrupt.
We trust the Justices understand that if
they now drop the gun case, they will appear
to be bending under this assault.Democrats order
the Justices to drop
a gun case—or else.
Still Heading for the ObamaCare Exits
R
epublicans think they can win on health
care in 2020 by running against Medicare
for All, and the facts about single payer
are a target-rich environment.
But the latest data on Obama-
Care shows why the GOP needs
to come up with its own ideas
to sell to the public.
The Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services this
week released a report on trends in the individual
health insurance market, and the results are ugly.
Of particular note is the continued flight of those
who aren’t entitled to the Affordable Care Act’s
tax-credit subsidies and thus are exposed to the
full pain of high premiums. The tax credits phase
out at about $100,000 for a family of four. In other
words, the American middle class.
From 2016 to 2018, enrollment among those
who didn’t qualify for subsidies dropped by 2.
million people—a 40% decline nationally. Aver-
age monthly enrollment across the entire indi-
vidual market fell 7% between 2017 and 2018.
CMS says the decline occurred “entirely”
among people who didn’t receive subsidies. For
those who get taxpayer help, enrollment in-
creased 4%. Remember that the law’s tax cred-
its increase with premiums, and thus so does
the strain on the public fisc.
CMS notes the escape from the market is far
more pronounced in some states. Over the same
two-year period, unsubsidized enrollment
dropped by an astounding 91% in Iowa, 79% in
Arizona, 78% in Nebraska, 76% in Tennessee,
and 71% in Georgia and Oklahoma.
All told, CMS says the subsidized portion of
the market was 122% larger than the unsubsi-
dized market in 2018, up from
61% in 2017. In other words,
ObamaCare plans are increas-
ingly valuable only to those
who receive cash transfers to
buy it.
The left blames this on the
Trump Administration’s alleged “sabotage” by,
say, repealing the individual mandate that re-
quired a person to buy insurance. Democrats
don’t seem to realize what an indictment it is
that so many Americans don’t care to buy this
insurance without coercion. The most hilarious
claim is that the exchanges are suffering from
the Trump crowd cutting the marketing budget.
Maybe there’s a problem with the product and
not the public-relations materials?
The Trump Administration deserves credit
for using its regulatory authority to create es-
cape hatches for those who are priced out of
ObamaCare. One is the recent rule on short-
term health insurance. Another good move is
expanding health-reimbursement arrangements
that employers can set up.
But the evidence is that the Affordable Care
Act still needs wholesale reform, even as many
Republicans seem fine to accept ObamaCare as
a permanent entitlement. Americans are fright-
ened by Medicare for All, but don’t be surprised
if they take a flyer on single payer if the GOP
isn’t offering an alternative.New data show
enrollment is falling fast
for the unsubsidized.
A New Rule of the Trucking Road
R
egulation can do more harm than good,
especially regarding safety. This reality
is behind an overdue update this week
of a federal rule on truck-driver hours.
The current regime is a relic of the 1930s
when unions wanted limits on trucker hours
so employers hired more drivers. Those rules
have grown onerous in a new world of owner-
operators, many of whom long evaded the sil-
lier restrictions by creatively editing their pa-
per log books.
That flexibility ended in 2017 with an Obama
rule mandating electronic logging devices in
trucks. The main consequence of this strict
monitoring has been to cause drivers to engage
in a hazardous daily race to beat the clock, driv-
ing through exhaustion, rush-hour congestion
or poor weather. Drivers are also earning less,
while transport costs have increased.
The proposed new hours-of-service rule
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminis-
tration restores flexibility to commercial driv-
ers. Drivers are currently allowed to work 14
hours a day, 11 of them driving. But once they
punch the electronic clock, nothing stops it.
Most drivers are paid by the mile, so this cre-
ates an incentive to keep on truckin’—no matter
the road conditions.
The new rule would let drivers “pause” for an
off-duty rest of up to three hours, and to break
up their mandated off-duty time. Drivers could
extend their window of driving time up to two ad-
ditional hours if they encounter bad weather.
The proposal would also rationalize the “30-
minute rest break” provision. Drivers are now
required after eight hours of work to stop for
30 minutes—no matter where they are. This can
compel truckers to pull over in emergency lanes
or other potential danger zones. The new rule
would let truckers count as break time when
they are on-duty but not driving (such as load-
ing cargo or filling the gas tank).
Unions are objecting to the changes, even as
they ignore that the most important require-
ments remain. The rule doesn’t increase the al-
lowable daily driving time and doesn’t let truck-
ers drive more than eight consecutive hours
without a break. It still requires them to take 10
hours off duty every day. The changes give driv-
ers more control over how their day is broken
up, and more ability to manage fatigue, bad
roads or traffic. Truckers care more than any-
body else about getting home safely and pro-
tecting their equipment—which for many is an
investment and livelihood.
The new rule will also relieve some ineffi-
ciencies and higher costs caused by the Obama
rule. The trucking industry employs more than
seven million people and moves 70% of the na-
tion’s domestic freight. The new rule is esti-
mated to provide $270 million in savings for the
economy and consumers. But its biggest payoff
will be restoring to truckers the ability to man-
age their time to drive safely.REVIEW & OUTLOOK
OPINION