I don’t normally follow court cases, but one recently under review by the Supreme Court caught my eye. The case, Doe v. Reed, involves a group of Washington state residents who successfully petitioned for a referendum, Washington Referendum 71, to affirm or overturn state legislation expanding rights for same-sex couples. Government officials believe that, under the state’s Public Records Act, they have an obligation to release upon request the names and addresses of those who signed the petition.

“In all states with initiative or referendum systems, the ballot measure represents the people substituting themselves for legislatures,” Washington’s attorney general, Rob McKenna, said in a September 12 New York Times article. “We don’t conduct [the] legislative process in secret, and it doesn’t make sense to conduct this legislative process in secret either.”

The referendum supporters disagree, arguing that releasing their personal information is a form of intimidation and is thus a violation of their freedom of speech. “We’re not talking about removing the transparency of government,” said James Bopp, a lawyer for the group. “We’re talking about whether citizens should be outed in their participation in our democracy.” Bopp and others note that activists have published names and addresses of those who supported similar petitions in other states. Making this kind of information public has sometimes led to threats or boycotts of businesses, they say. But Tom Lang, the director of the activist Web site KnowThyNeighbor.org, says the publication of petitioners’ names and addresses is intended to generate conversations between neighbors, friends and others who already have personal connections, not to harass or intimidate anyone.

The Federal District Court of Washington issued an order on September 10 temporarily prohibiting the state of Washington from releasing the referendum supporters’ personal information, stating that the case “likely raises serious First Amendment questions in regard to protected speech.” Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the injunction, the Supreme Court has reinstated it until the parties in the case file new motions for action.

How can the courts balance freedom of speech and freedom of information in this case? Is it even possible?

(I’m listening to “2+2=5” by Radiohead)

U.S. lawmakers recently decided to use the traditional town hall meeting format in order to discuss legislation to overhaul the American health care system. But what has happened has often been anything but the orderly raising of hands, point and counterpoint rebuttals, and parliamentary-style procedure that you would think shows a healthy democracy at work.

Instead, the news coverage has shown speakers being shouted down by angry citizens, who are often repeating erroneous claims that the health care legislation calls for government “death panels,” and carrying posters equating President Obama with Adolph Hitler. On the other side, there have been calls for the legislation to simply be pushed through Congress by the majority without any input from opposition voices.

Due to the disruptions and the news concentration on the more sensational aspects of the debate, the town halls did not accomplish what I think was supposed to be their goal: to explain and debate the health care legislation so that Americans have a clearer understanding of what exactly is being proposed.

What’s going on? Is this a sign that democratic discourse has failed in the world’s oldest democracy? Well, maybe the problem is larger than that, an American sociologist says. The University of Buffalo’s Professor Steve Hoffman argues that human beings are not always rational enough to be objective. Rather than fairly evaluate evidence before making a decision, we often work backwards from a firm conclusion to find our own supporting evidence, and reject whatever seems to conflict with it.

This type of thought process is being called “motivated reasoning.” Maybe it doesn’t lead you to make informed decisions, but after watching and listening to recent news footage of the health care debate, I believe it does at least manage to drive your debate opponent to exasperation.

“People get deeply attached to their beliefs,” Hoffman said in an article that appeared August 26 in LiveScience. “We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter.” In order to keep a sense of “personal and social identity,” we therefore tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify our beliefs.

From another way of looking at it, all of the available free press and free speech is not going to make any difference when you have no interest in giving it a fair analysis.

A separate LiveScience article suggests that educational deficiencies could be playing a role here, since it argues students are not being taught how to think analytically and critically.

What do you think? In the interest of having thoughtful discussions to inform voters and constituents, is there a good way to discourage the impact of motivated reasoning?

An August 11 editorial by Whole Foods co-founder and CEO John Mackey on health care reform has generated an enormous amount of discussion on the Web. Following the publication of the Wall Street Journal piece, many people have been using social media tools to organize a boycott of the organic food company. As of August 27, the Facebook group Boycott Whole Foods had more than 29,600 members and links to a related blog, Twitter account and flickr pool.

A man protests outside a Whole Foods store.

On August 18, the Wall Street Journal published its own editorial criticizing the boycott. “Those who actually read Mr. Mackey’s piece may find the racket puzzling. The CEO suggests ways to reform health care without a new deficit-busting entitlement,” it says. It also notes that “Whole Foods is a publicly traded company, so the effects of a real boycott would mainly damage the pocketbooks of those nice Whole Foods employees and its stockholders,” and that “Whole Foods’ Web site has its share of angry customers, but they have been joined by many supporting Mr. Mackey’s position.” (As of August 27, the site’s forums section had more than 2,460 separate message threads and over 18,300 posts about health care reform.)

“Mr. Mackey wrote his op-ed to join a national debate on a subject that will affect his company and employees. He deserves credit for exercising his right to free speech, no matter the risk this currently entails in our politics,” the Wall Street Journal says.

The CtW Investment Group, a major shareholder in Whole Foods that is affiliated with union pension funds (Whole Foods is not unionized), argues the controversy over Mackey’s editorial goes beyond the issue of free speech. On August 25, the group issued a letter to Whole Foods’ lead independent director calling for the CEO’s removal, noting that “Mr. Mackey’s article was not a citizen’s ‘letter to the editor,’ but a lengthy op-ed that explicitly tied him to Whole Foods by identifying him as the CEO.” According to CtW, “This is not the first time Mr. Mackey’s unsanctioned communications have damaged Whole Foods’ image with consumers and investors.”

Should people closely affiliated with companies have restrictions on what they can say and write? And does it make sense to boycott a company over something not directly related to its products?

These days, Americans don’t have to look too hard to see how complex democracy can be. We’re watching a great political debate unfold before our eyes: the debate over what to do about health care.

As I’ve written about before, what to do about health care has been one of the most persistent questions in U.S. politics. As I wrote then, and what has become even clearer as our health care debate makes international headlines, there is no national consensus about how health care should be run. And with the explosion of new media, that consensus seems even less clear as more and more voices can easily enter the debate.

Regardless of your position on health care, the debate itself raises a host of questions about the appropriate role of freedom of speech and dissent in a democratic society. Our writers will be asking some of these very questions in the coming days. Hope you’ll help us answer them!

“My short animated video…was created to show the essence of what I think the Ideas of Democracy should be, not only as a system but also as a way of thinking. I wanted to focus on the positive aspects of Democracy rather than to pick holes in it. So I have decided to show, using the simple symbols, the possibility of choosing your own way, freedom of expression, choice for life and the last but most important tolerance.”
– Luke Szozda, Democracy Video Challenge Winner.

In a few short weeks, the six winners of the Democracy Video Challenge will travel to the U.S. to visit New York City, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles.

To get ready for their trip, we’re featuring a different winning video each week for the rest of the summer. First up was the winner from the Philippines.  Next came Brazil and then Nepal.  This week it’s winner Luke Szozda from Poland, whose video is called, “Democracy is…animation.”

And remember to join Luke this Friday, August 14, for a webchat, when he’ll talk about his film, his life, and his thoughts on democracy. You can submit questions to Luke in advance in the comments portion of this blog or by going to the chat room. Simply enter as a guest, and leave your question in the chat box provided. We look forward to chatting with you on Friday!

Webchat with Luke: https://statedept.connectsolutions.com/americagov

Watch Luke’s Video:

I have been reading a lot of African blogs lately. While there are blogs on every topic imaginable, I especially like the political ones. Having talked online to young Africans inspired by President Obama’s words in Ghana about how their generation can make a difference, I want to follow their progress.

One inspiring movement I came across while surfing blogs is LightUPNigeria. It’s a group of Nigerians advocating for their government to provide more reliable power infrastructure. “The movement aims to highlight the problems caused by the lack of constant power supply in Nigeria and raise awareness of the situation globally,” their Web site says. An unreliable power supply cripples industries and hinders advancements in health care, they say.

The organization says this is “not a political campaign.”

And while their movement may have nothing to do with politics or political parties or who is in power, their tactics for bringing awareness to their cause are the same ones used by the best of American political campaigns. They are spreading their message on Facebook, Twitter and other Web sites. They are encouraging supporters to raise this issue at town halls and concerts. They want people to sign a petition. Planning is underway for a peaceful protest in October in Lagos.

What will come of their efforts is uncertain. But judging by how much they have already done, I’m optimistic – and certain this is a movement worth watching!

“Music is important to me and therefore an important element in the video…Concept of democracy is complex and means different things to different people. All opinions must be respected and it’s all not pretty in the face of democracy…these are some of the things I wanted to portray in the film.”             - Tsering Choden, Democracy Video Challenge Winner.

In just a few short weeks, the six winners of the Democracy Video Challenge will travel to the U.S. to visit New York City, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles.

To get ready for their trip, we’re featuring a different winning video each week for the rest of the summer. First up was the winner from the Philippines.  Next came Brazil.  This week it’s winner Tsering Choden from Nepal, whose video is called, “Democracy is…A Movement of the People.”

And remember to join Tsering this Friday, August 7, for a webchat, when she’ll talk about her film, her life, and her thoughts on democracy. You can submit questions to her in advance in the comments portion of this blog or by going to the chat room. Simply enter as a guest, and leave your question in the chat box provided. We look forward to chatting with you on Friday!

Webchat with Tsering: https://statedept.connectsolutions.com/americagov

Watch Tsering’s Video:

(I’m listening to “I am Sunday” by The Red Telephone)

Protests against Iran’s June 12 official presidential election results on the streets and online have continued, and the past few weeks have seen a lot of interesting Web activity as Iranians try to keep the world informed of their activities.

To get some perspective on what has been happening lately in the Persian language blogosphere, I interviewed Mr. Kia Efhad from the State Department’s Digital Outreach Team.  Have a listen.

Regular readers of By the People know all about the Democracy Video Challenge. It’s the contest that asked filmmakers from around the world to submit a three minute video that completed the phrase, “Democracy is…” The Challenge received over 900 videos from 95 different countries, and the public voted for their favorites on YouTube.  The six winners will travel to the U.S. this fall to visit New York City, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles.

To get ready for their trip, we’ll be featuring a different winning video each week for the rest of the summer. First up is the Philippines and filmmaker Aissa Peñafiel’s video, ”Long Live the Fearless Man.”

Join Aissa this Friday, July 24,  for a webchat.  She’ll talk about her film, her life, and her thoughts on democracy. You can submit questions to her in advance in the comments portion of this blog, or by going to the chat room. Simply enter as a guest, and leave your question in the chat box provided. We look forward to chatting with you on Friday!

Webchat with Aissa: https://statedept.connectsolutions.com/americagov

Ever since the Democracy Video Challenge announced this year’s winners, online buzz about the contest has continued to grow. There was Newsweek’s Generation O blog post, which commented on the different styles of the winning videos, the My Republica story about Nepalese winner Tsering Choden, and the Associated Foreign Press piece that provided a helpful overview of the contest.

In addition to all that, YouTube featured the Democracy Video Challenge on its homepage. Here on By the People we had a guest post from Zambia that cheered the country’s hometown winter, Chansa Tembo.

Some of my favorite buzz has come from the Democracy Video Challenge’s YouTube page. Comments on winning videos and the montage video that highlights all 18 finalists have been exciting to read. Here’s a sampling of what people are saying:

TheGranule says: Read the Federalists Papers and the US constitution, also de Toqueville. All the great arguments for the various types of democracy are explored by great minds.

murkmumba says: we need democracy

ackbarkazar says: i really cant stand democracy i takes way too long to get anything across let alone done…

strongmad86 says: my democracy doesn’t let me do alot of things i want to do

asthenia166 says: we people as a whole, every one of us needs to stand together, and take the power back.

kronoff317 says: Democracy is where 51% can enslave 49% of the other people.

And lastly,

kangurupt says: democracy is a bless for all human beings!

You can watch the videos, read more comments, and add your own thoughts on the Democracy Video Challenge YouTube page: http://www.youtube.com/user/DemocracyChallenge