The No Asshole Rule and the FCC

The No Asshole Rule is a book of tremendous value about the feasibility and importance of eliminating workplace bullying. It has a memorable title.

These and other ambiguities provoke fear among the broadcast journalists who interview me. I once was in the middle of a screaming argument between a radio host and his producer. The host insisted it was okay to say “asshole.” His producer hollered back, “You’re going to get me fired! I’m the one who’s going to have to deal with the lawyers and be blamed for your filthy mouth!”

The producer’s fears illustrate the chilling effect of government censorship that the First Amendment is designed to protect against. I hope a case comes along soon that leads to a constitutional review of the current pattern of government censorship. And I hope that when it does, the courts look at how the media arena has changed in the past 30 years. Today’s editors and producers are acutely aware of their audiences, sponsors and funding sources, and they know what language their community will and will not find acceptable. Both the host and his paranoid producer on that radio show were confident their audience was comfortable with the word “asshole.” The producer feared his government, not his audience.

The No Asshole Rule and the FCC

The No Asshole Rule is a book of tremendous value about the feasibility and importance of eliminating workplace bullying. It has a memorable title.

These and other ambiguities provoke fear among the broadcast journalists who interview me. I once was in the middle of a screaming argument between a radio host and his producer. The host insisted it was okay to say “asshole.” His producer hollered back, “You’re going to get me fired! I’m the one who’s going to have to deal with the lawyers and be blamed for your filthy mouth!”

The producer’s fears illustrate the chilling effect of government censorship that the First Amendment is designed to protect against. I hope a case comes along soon that leads to a constitutional review of the current pattern of government censorship. And I hope that when it does, the courts look at how the media arena has changed in the past 30 years. Today’s editors and producers are acutely aware of their audiences, sponsors and funding sources, and they know what language their community will and will not find acceptable. Both the host and his paranoid producer on that radio show were confident their audience was comfortable with the word “asshole.” The producer feared his government, not his audience.

I voted

Good weather, around the corner. I showed up at 6:30-- it opened at 7:00, and I assumed it was better to wait for half an hour now than two hours later. I was first in line. There were about 20 people in line when I left.

As usual, there were electronic machines with no paper trail.

I voted

Good weather, around the corner. I showed up at 6:30-- it opened at 7:00, and I assumed it was better to wait for half an hour now than two hours later. I was first in line. There were about 20 people in line when I left.

As usual, there were electronic machines with no paper trail.

Who are you gonna believe, some economist or the Klan?

On the individual level, voting doesn't make a lot of sense. Democracy means putting in one bit per election cycle, and I don't mean your own personal bit, I mean that the whole electorate puts in a bit, and you contribute a little bitty bit of that bit. You've got a chance in tens of thousands, I think, of personally swinging an election.

And this assumes that your vote gets counted.

On the other hand, democracies tend to be better to live in than non-democracies, and I use the very simple metric of which countries have immigration problems versus which countries have emigration problems.

Using a similar approach that people have a fairly good idea of how to attain their ends, it's obvious that groups which want to retain a grasp on power don't like voting. They don't have it at all, or they make it totally corrupt, or they terrorize voters. That last is actually kind of surprising when it's so easy to fake results. Tentative theory: aside from the practical effects of voting, even moderately honest elections are the government showing respect to citizens, and citizens showing respect to each other.

So you might as well vote.

Who are you gonna believe, some economist or the Klan?

On the individual level, voting doesn't make a lot of sense. Democracy means putting in one bit per election cycle, and I don't mean your own personal bit, I mean that the whole electorate puts in a bit, and you contribute a little bitty bit of that bit. You've got a chance in tens of thousands, I think, of personally swinging an election.

And this assumes that your vote gets counted.

On the other hand, democracies tend to be better to live in than non-democracies, and I use the very simple metric of which countries have immigration problems versus which countries have emigration problems.

Using a similar approach that people have a fairly good idea of how to attain their ends, it's obvious that groups which want to retain a grasp on power don't like voting. They don't have it at all, or they make it totally corrupt, or they terrorize voters. That last is actually kind of surprising when it's so easy to fake results. Tentative theory: aside from the practical effects of voting, even moderately honest elections are the government showing respect to citizens, and citizens showing respect to each other.

So you might as well vote.