Legislation – Sermo Civilis

Artificial Intelligence & American Copyright Law: Analyzing the Copyright Office’s AI Report

Copyright Office’s AI Report: The Good, The Bad, and The Controversial

The Copyright Office just dropped Part 3 of its AI report, which aimed at addressing certain copyright law in regards to Artificial Intelligence. The thing that’s got everyone talking is the fact that the report was supposed to tackle infringement issues head on, but instead teased us by saying that answer will come up in “Part 4” that is expected to be released at a later date. Let’s dive into what was actually discussed.

Legal Theory: A Case by Case Basis

The report’s central thesis is a pretty straightforward legal theory. Basically, they recommend that there will be no blanket rule on whether training AI on copyrighted content constitutes infringement or fair use. Everything gets the case by case treatment, which is both realistic and frustrating depending on where you sit. That’s because most lawyers like clear bright line rules backed up by years of precedent, but when attempting to make legal frameworks regarding emerging technologies, the brightline approach is easier said than done.

The report acknowledges that scraping content for training data is different from generating outputs, and those are different from outputs that get used commercially. Each stage implicates different exclusive rights, and each deserves separate analysis. So in essence, what’s actually useful here is the recognition that AI development involves multiple stages, each with its’ unique copyright implications.

This multi stage approach makes sense, but it also means more complexity for everyone involved. Tech companies can’t just assume that fair use covers everything they’re doing and content creators can’t assume it covers nothing. The devil is in the details.

Transformative Use Gets Complicated

The report reaffirms that various uses of copyrighted works in AI training are “likely to be transformative,” but then immediately complicates things by noting that transformative doesn’t automatically mean fair. The fairness analysis depends on what works were used, where they came from, what purpose they served, and what controls exist on outputs.

This nuanced approach is probably correct legally, but it’s also a nightmare for anyone trying to build AI systems at scale. You can’t just slap a “transformative use” label on everything and call it a day. The source of the material matters, and whether the content was pirated or legally obtained can factor into the analysis. So clearly purpose also matters since commercial use and research use will likely yield different results in the copyright realm. Control and mitigation matter in this context because developing the necessary guardrails is paramount to preventing direct copying or market substitution.

Nothing too revolutionary here, but the emphasis on these factors signals that the Copyright Office is taking a more sophisticated approach than some of the more simplistic takes we’ve seen from various opinions on this matter. This should be reassuring since a one size fits all approach at such an early stage of developing AI could stifle innovation. However if things are left to be too uncontrolled copyrighted works may face infringements to their copyright.

The Fourth Factor Controversy

Here’s where things get interesting and controversial. The report takes an expansive view of the fourth fair use factor: which is the effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work. That is because too many copyrighted works flooding the market brings fears of market dilution, lost licensing opportunities, and broader economic impacts.

The Office’s position is that the statute covers any “effect” on the potential market, which is broad interpretation. But that broad interpretation has a reason, they are worried about the “speed and scale” at which AI systems can generate content, creating what they see as a “serious risk of diluting markets” for similar works. Imagine an artist creates a new masterpiece only to get it copied by an AI model which makes the piece easily recreatble by anyone, diluting the value of the original masterpiece. These types of things are happening on the market today.

This gets particularly thorny when it comes to style. The report acknowledges that copyright doesn’t protect style per se, but then argues that AI models generating “material stylistically similar to works in their training data” could still cause market harm. That’s a fascinating tension, you can’t copyright a style but you might be able to claim market harm from AI systems that replicate it too effectively. It is going to be interesting to see how a court applies these rules in the coming future.

This interpretation could be a game-changer, and not necessarily in a good way for AI developers. If every stylistic similarity becomes a potential market harm argument, the fair use analysis becomes much more restrictive than many in the tech industry have been assuming.

The Guardrails

One of the more practical takeaways from the report is its emphasis on “guardrails” as a way to reduce infringement risk. The message is clear: if you’re building AI systems, you better have robust controls in place to prevent direct copying, attribution failures, and market substitution.

This is where the rubber meets the road for AI companies. Technical safeguards, content filtering, attribution systems, and output controls aren’t just up to the discretion of the engineers anymore they’re becoming essential elements of any defensible fair use argument.

The report doesn’t specify exactly what guardrails are sufficient, which leaves everyone guessing. But the implication is clear: the more you can show you’re taking steps to prevent harmful outputs, the stronger your fair use position becomes. So theoretically if a model has enough guardrails they may be able to mitigate their damages if the model happens to accidently output copyrighted works.

RAG Gets Attention

The report also dives into Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), which is significant because RAG systems work differently from traditional training approaches. Instead of baking copyrighted content into model weights, RAG systems retrieve and reference content dynamically.

This creates different copyright implications: potentially more like traditional quotation and citation than wholesale copying. But it also creates new challenges around attribution, licensing, and fair use analysis. The report doesn’t resolve these issues, but it signals that the Copyright Office is paying attention to the technical details that matter.

Licensing

The report endorses voluntary licensing and extended collective licensing as potential solutions, while rejecting compulsory licensing schemes or new legislation “for now.” This is probably the most politically palatable position, but it doesn’t solve the practical problems.

Voluntary licensing sounds great in theory, but the transaction costs are enormous when you’re dealing with millions of works from thousands of rights holders. Extended collective licensing might work for some use cases, but it requires coordination that doesn’t currently exist in most creative industries.

The “for now” qualifier is doing a lot of work here. It suggests that if voluntary solutions don’t emerge, more aggressive interventions might be on the table later.

The Real Stakes

What makes this report particularly significant isn’t just what it says, but what it signals about the broader policy direction. The Copyright Office is clearly trying to thread the needle between protecting creators and enabling innovation, but the emphasis on expansive market harm analysis tilts toward the protection side.

For AI companies, this report is a warning shot. The days of assuming that everything falls under fair use are over. The need for licensing, guardrails, and careful legal analysis is becoming unavoidable.

For content creators, it’s a mixed bag. The report takes their concerns seriously and provides some theoretical protection, but it doesn’t offer the clear-cut prohibitions that some have been seeking.

The real test will come in the courts, where these theoretical frameworks meet practical disputes. But this report will likely influence how those cases get decided, making it required reading for anyone in the AI space.

As we can see AI and copyright law is becoming only more and more complex. The simple answers that everyone wants don’t exist, and this report makes that abundantly clear. The question now is whether the industry can adapt to this new reality or whether we’re heading for a collision that nobody really wants.

Arbitration: A Key Piece To Africa’s Future Economic Success

This article is an excerpt of a larger working paper aimed at policy makers, economists, and investors. This article was aimed to be shorter and less technical than the larger paper.

International commercial arbitration has been touted by many members of the business community and legal profession as a suitable means of settling trade disputes outside of a formal court room. The reasons a person would want to choose to arbitrate a commercial dispute could range from the rapidness of arbitral proceedings in comparison to domestic courts to the ability to keep proceedings confidential. But the benefits of commercial arbitration are not strictly limited to the parties involved in the arbitrational proceedings. There have been numerous studies outlining how commercial arbitration also facilitates economic growth and social well being within nations. The United Nations has acknowledged the many benefits of commercial arbitration fact and has incentivized the use of arbitral institutions. No other continent can benefit more from arbitration than Africa.

The UN has facilitated arbitration by incentivizing a multilateral treaty regime for international commercial transactions. One of the main treaties that attempted to incentivize arbitral proceedings is formally known as United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (also known as the ‘New York Convention’). Every signatory to the New York Convention makes two fundamental promises. The first promise is to honor written agreements that call for parties to arbitrate matters that are capable of settlement by the arbitration agreement. And the second fundamental promise is that nations who are signatories to the New York Convention agree that their national domestic courts will recognize and enforce arbitral awards. (New York Convetion). Out of 193 nations, 162 nations are signatories to the New York Convention. The 162 nations include some of the worlds trading powerhouses most notably China and the United States.

Africa is the continent with the least signatories to the New York Convention. Further, in comparison to other continents, Africa is the least economically developed. (per the Global Policy Forum). This is not a correlation that should be overlooked. International commercial arbitration attracts investment and can play a vital role in developing a nation’s overall political economy. At a surface level commercial arbitration facilities trade between nations increasing trade input and output, improving economic activity. However, there is subtle message being sent when a nation has a robust institutional system of commercial arbitration and has domestic courts willing to enforce arbitral awards. That message is simple, “we want to incentivize international trade in a fair and equitable manner”. When a nation does this business are more likely to invest and contract with people/entities within that nation, because they have the confidence that domestic courts will enforce arbitral awards. Continents which are considered to be ‘highly developed’, namely Europe and North America, have robust systems that facilitate international commercial arbitration. (Latham & Watkins).

During the 20^th century Africa as a continent relied heavily on aid from other wealthier nations to develop. And foreign aid to this day still plays a major role in Africa, and has it’s benefits. However, research done by Mai Abdulaziz Alghamdi suggests that foreign aid may be doing more harm than good. (Alghamdi). He argues that burdensome amounts of foreign aid can have deleterious effects on aid-recipient countries. (Alghamdi). That is because Africa is the largest recipient of foreign aid. The effect of foreign aid on economic growth is positive however the net benefit of foreign aid is small, suggesting that foreign aid does not result in drastic increases in economic growth.( Alghamdi). Countries need aid to develop but there are negative consequences if a nation heavily relies on aid to fund its government and develop its economy. For example, Bazoumana Ouattara analyzed the effect of aid flow in Senegal. He found that that a large portion of aid flow (around 41%) is used to finance Senegal’s debt and 20% of the government’s resources are devoted to debt servicing. (Ouattara). Secondly, he found that the impact of aid flows on domestic expenditures is statistically insignificant, and that debt servicing has a significant negative effect on domestic expenditure. (Ouattara). In essence, the aid given to Senegal is used to finance the government and not neccesarily used to directly develop the economy as a whole. Several African nations seem to have recognized that in order to sustain meaningful economic development then they must not rely so much on foreign aid. Many nations have attempted to stimulate business activity within their jurisdiction via various economic initiatives. But Africa’s economic powerhouses seem to have one thing in common when it comes to economic/ legal development in the 21^st century. They all are utilizing the tools of international commercial arbitration to stimulate economic growth. One significant nation

Four years after Kenyan independence, that Kenya would enact its first sovereign arbitration legislation, The Arbitration Act of 1968. It was largely influenced by the Arbitration Ordinance of 1914 which was legislation used in colonial Kenya. However, for some unexplained reason, the act adopted outdated arbitral protocol when instead they ideally should have used the New York Convention as a model for Kenya’s arbitral legislation. So, in essence what occurred is that Kenya kept Britain’s colonial arbitral law intact. Unfortunately, the act allowed the court to retain their oversight over all arbitral proceedings in Kenya, meaning that parties could manipulate the court system to frustrate and delay the arbitral process. (Mbithi). In contrast to Kenya’s pre-colonial arbitral past. For example, in East African Power & Lightning Co. Ltd v Kilimanjaro Construction ltd, the Court of Appeals, declined to stay proceedings in favor of arbitration in spite of the fact of the existence of an arbitration agreement.

However a comprehensive piece of arbitral legislation would come in to effect in 1995. After Kenya aggressively pursued policies that successfully attracted foreign direct investment, it quickly became apparent that the Arbitration Act of 1968 needed reform in order to keep foreign investment within Kenya high. (Mbithi). Kenya had some of its worst economic performances between the years of 1991-92. Growth stagnated. Inflation reached a historic level. Further the government’s budget deficit was over 10% of GDP. In effect, due to treaty requirements, bilateral and multilateral donors suspended their aid programs in Kenya in 1991, resulting in economic uncertainty. One of the ways Kenyan legislature attempted to remedy the dire economic situation was by repealing the old arbitration act and creating a new framework. (Mbithi). The legislature enacted the Arbitration Act, No. 4 of 1995. The new piece of legislation adopted the UNCITRAL model law, a more modern framework arbitral framework. It also was expanded to include both domestic and international arbitration. (Mbithi). But despite these major improvements, there was a profound change to the new piece legislation. Section X of the Arbitration Act stipulated “except as provided in this Act, no court shall intervene in matters governed by this Act”. This not only had ramifications in international commercial arbitration, but it also was a check on the judiciary by the legislature, prior to this act the courts had absolute oversight over all adjudicative functions in the country.

In 2006, Kenya’s government drafted a new developmental program that would make sure that by 2030 Kenya is “newly industrialized, middle income country that provides a high quality of life to all it’s citizens”. (Vision 2030). The plan is called Kenya Vision 2030. As of 2020, the initiative has proven fruitful. (World Bank). Kenya far at performs its neighbors economically, mainly due to the influx of foreign investment and their well developed social and physical infrastructure. (World Bank). Further, in 2020 Kenya ranked number 56 in the Ease of Doing Business Index. This is a significant jump in rankings when compared to Kenya’s position in 2010 which was 95. This improvement can be partly explained by changes made within Kenya’s Constitution. In order to facilitate the Kenya Vision 2030 plan, the constitution was changed to include this provision: “alternative forms of dispute resolution including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms shall be promoted, subject to clause”. (Muigua). Arbitration was now backed via statute and Kenya’s constitution. This signaled to foreign investors and businesses that commercial arbitration is being incentivized within the nation. After the constitution was changed, Kenya made exponential improvements economically, and their rankings in the Ease of Doing business index would continue to rise. (Muigua) Kenya will likely fulfill the goals set out in the Kenya Vision 2030 plan.

Section 230: From Jordan Belfort to Gonzalez- The Law That Made The Modern Internet

On May 24, 1995, Jordan Belfort’s brokerage firm Stratton Oakmont successfully sued Prodigy Communications Corporation in a New York court for defamation. Little did anyone know Stratton’s win over Prodigy would be the catalyst that changed the internet forever. The so called Wolves of Wallstreet had unknowingly set a dangerous precedent that threated the tech industry.

Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Services

Prodigy was an online internet service which more or less mirrored modern day social media sites, it serviced over 2 million people at its peak. Users were able to utilize a broad range of services such as getting access to news, weather updates, shopping, and bulletin boards. One of Prodigy’s notorious bulletin boards was called Money Talk, a popular forum where members would discuss economics, finance, and stocks- similar to Reddit’s Wallstreet Bets forum. Prodigy also contracted with independent moderators to vet and participate in the board discussions, similar to editors in a Newspaper but who engaged with their audience a lot more.

In 1994, two posts would subject Prodigy to legal liability. An unidentified user posted on the Money Talk bulletin on the dates of October 23rd & 25^th, claiming that Stratton Oakmont was committing SEC violations and engaging in fraud in regards to an IPO they were involved in (Solomon-Page’s IPO) . The poster claimed:

the Solomon-Page IPO was a “major criminal fraud” and “100% criminal fraud”
Daniel Porush was a “soon to be proven criminal”
Stratton was a “cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired.”

Ironically many of these claims would turn out to be true, however at the time they were unsubstantiated since there was no concrete evidence to back them up. After Stratton was made aware of the posts, the company and Daniel Porush (aka Jonah Hill’s character in the movie) commenced legal action against Prodigy for defamation due to the libelous statements made on Money Talks.

In the United States defamation claims are not plaintiff friendly due to the strong protections the 1^st Amendment offers. In general in order to succeed in a defamation, a plaintiff must prove four elements:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact;

2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;

3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and

4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

In the suit brought by Stratton against Prodigy the court focused on element 2 and 3. Namely whether or not Prodigy was a publisher & if the moderator’s acts or omissions while editing the Money Talk bulletin board amounted to at least negligence. The court ruled in favor for Stratton Oakmont.

The court reasoned that an operator of an online message board is considered a publisher for purposes of defamation liability. Specifically, if the online operator holds itself out as controlling the content of the message board and implements such control through guidelines and screening programs. An entity that repeats or otherwise republishes a libel post is subject to liability as if he had originally published it. But a party disseminating others’ content only faces libel liability if the party qualifies as a publisher rather than a distributor. If a party merely “distributes” others’ content, then the party is a distributor and is not subject to liability. The court used the phrase “passive conduits” to describe distributors. A passive conduit doesn’t face liability for libel absent a finding that the distributor knew or had reason to know that distributed content contained defamatory statements. Basically, if you had a content moderation system for user generated content your website was likely liable for defamation. Defenses such as the impracticability of moderating millions of user generated posts had no merit and would still subject the website to defamation claims. This ruling would shake the tech and internet industry, threatening to stunt and undo years of innovation.

To avoid a barrage of lawsuits the tech industry successfully lobbied Congress to act after the Stratton ruling. In 1996 Congress passed the Communications Decency Act which dealt with various internet related issues. The one most pertinent to us is Section 230(c).

Jeff Kosseff one of the leading scholars on Section 230 describes it as “the twenty-six words that created the internet.” The 26 words are:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

These words provide immunity to online platforms from being held liable for user-generated content. Basically, it means that online platforms such as social media sites, forums, and search engines cannot be sued or prosecuted for what a user posts on their platforms. Even if the posts themselves are defamatory, false, or harmful .

This immunity has been vital in enabling the growth of the internet and the rise of social media platforms. It has allowed these platforms to provide a space for free expression and to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas without fear of legal consequences, unlike Prodigy who was a victim of pre Section 230 protection. This has also allowed smaller and newer online platforms to compete with established ones without having to worry about legal liabilities. Without Section 230, the internet me and you know and love would not exist- I likely would not be able to publish my articles without exposing myself to liability.

However, recently there have been attacks and concerns over the immunity Section 230 provides. Specifically that online platforms are basically not responsible for any harmful content on their platforms, such as hate speech, harassment, and misinformation. Basically, people not in favor of the immunity argue that Section 230 has created an environment in which online hate speech and harassment can thrive. One recent case that puts forth such an argument Gonzalez v Google, has made it all the way to Supreme Court.

Gonzalez v. Google & It’s Implications

Gonzalez alleges ISIS generally used YouTube (owned by Google) to recruit members into its terror cells and “communicate its (ISIS’) desired messages.” which lead to the horrific events that occurred in Paris in 2015. Nohemi Gonzalez, a US citizen was unfortunately killed during the ISIS terror attacks that gripped the world in 2015. ISIS would later claim full responsibility for the attacks that lead to the untimely passing of Gonzalez.

Gonzalez argues that since YouTube videos helped fuel “the rise of ISIS” by knowingly recommending ISIS videos to its users, they are directly responsible for causing the Paris attack. They back up their argument that Google knew of such activity by claiming “[d]espite extensive media coverage, complaints, legal warnings, congressional hearings, and other attention for providing online social media platform and communications services to ISIS, prior to the Paris attacks Google continued to provide those resources and services to ISIS and its affiliates, refusing to actively identify ISIS YouTube accounts and only reviewing accounts reported by other YouTube users.” Their argument suggests that Google’s algorithms fall out of the scope of Section 230 and therefore subject them to liability.

Google contends that Section 230 fully immunizes them from such a suit based on judicial precedent and congressional intent, that their terms of services directly prohibit content that promotes terrorism, and they actively blocked such content when it was published by hiring Middle Eastern content moderators that worked 24/7 to flag terroristic content. Before the case arrived to the Supreme Court, all lower courts found in favor for Google.

Jess Miers a prominent Section 230 scholar mentions that this case “tees up a contentious question for the Supreme Court: whether Section 230 — a law that empowers websites to host, display and moderate user content — covers algorithmic curation.”. She points out that a vast majority of websites use non neutral algorithms, and that if the Supreme Court were to side in favor of Gonzalez it would open the flood gates of litigation against online services providers that rely on algorithms to function. Not only that but this ruling could incentivize states to curate the internet to achieve their ideological means, such as punishing websites for cracking down on misinformation or providing information for abortion services. This would give states too much power, and could lead to arbitrary curation of the information you see on the internet. A significant blow to consumers and arguably the facilitation of the 1^st Amendment for Americans.

Only time will tell what happens with Section 230 as the court is expected to makes in ruling this summer. Hopefully, they make the right decision.

Sources:

STRATTON OAKMONT, INC. and Daniel Porush, Plaintiff(s),
v. PRODIGY SERVICES COMPANY, a Partnership of Joint Venture with IBM Corporation and Sears-Roebuck & Company, “John Doe” and “Mary Doe”, Defendant(s). Supreme Court, Nassau County, New York, Trial IAS Part 34.

Jeff Kosef: https://www.propublica.org/article/nsu-section-230

Jess Miers: High Court Should Protect Section 230 In Google Case https://www.law360.com/articles/1567399

Briefs of both parties in Supreme Court: REYNALDO GONZALEZ, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC,

Robert Moses: The Unelected Master Planner

Robert Moses is a figure that’s relatively obscure to the general public. However his influence has had a lasting impact throughout the United States. He would be paramount in engineering how cities in the States were structured, effectively influencing how and where Americans would spend their money.

Who was Robert Moses? Well, to start, he was unelected public official who held about 12 positions in the Greater New York city area. His stints in public office span from 1924-66. The positions he held had tremendous influence over urban planning. Urban planners aren’t often thought of as being political behemoths but Robert Moses’s tenure in these positions forces us to reconsider the influence unelected politicians may have over society.

Mr. Moses was a relentless, effective, and a calculated worker. His ability to start and finish public projects is arguably unmatched within the scope of American history. Furthermore, his ability to manipulate power goes far beyond the scope of anything Machiavelli could have imagined within a democratic republic. Robert Moses wasn’t fully understood or recognized outside of New York until the publication of Rob Caro’s Pulitzer winning book The Power Broker. The book gives us a grandiose look into the Moses. Robert Caro spent years researching for his book which spans roughly 1,300 pages. His scholarship, alongside with years of historical developments since the initial publication, are what guide my analysis on Robert Moses. Through our investigation of Robert Moses we will come to understand how a lot of cities in the United States mirror each other in terms of structure and societal development. And, albeit indirectly, an analysis of Moses forces us to consider a few philosophical questions when it comes to ideal local governance in the United States. But before we attempt to get understand why these two inquires are relevant , we have to investigate the rise of Robert Moses.

Robert Moses assent spanned various societal backgrounds. His tenure in public office spans three major historical events in the United States. Moses held positions during the economic boom of the 1920s, a crippling Depression in the 1930’s, World War II, and the subsequent post war economic boom.

The 1920’s: The Rise to Power

After finishing up his PhD at Columbia University, Moses decides to enter New York politics as a political idealist motivated to make change. A story familiar to many young professionals who aim to change the “old guard” within political systems. Moses had plenty of issues he wanted to grapple over. The society he was living in was corrupt, had little to no consumer protection, and certain industries were dominated by monopolies. He briefly worked for the Bureau of Municipal Research and with the U.S. Food Commission. But soon he realized that philosophical theories and logic, no matter how beneficial, wouldn’t take you far when it came to political advancement. His initial propositions were brushed under the rug by the seasoned veterans of government. Though his theoretical understanding of politics would come in handy from time to time, his practical education of political power would be where he was able to hone the craft of political power.

After a series of fortunate events Moses found himself appointed as the chief of staff to a woman named Belle Moskowitz. She was the leader of a commission tasked with organizing New Yorks administrative structure. A responsibility which came with significant power. It’s worthy to note Belle Moskowitz wasn’t elected by anyone. Rather, Moskowitz was appointed by Alfred Smith the Governor of New York. Smith was of course elected. I include these details not to be redundantly informative but rather to highlight the opaque nature of local government when it comes to transparency. People who you may assume are in control are passing that responsibility to an “advisor”, meaning there are various puppeteers pulling the strings. Moses’s time with Moskowitz is where he would learn the “tricks of the trade” in terms local governance. After managing to impress Alfred Smith through the early 1920’s, Moses found himself appointed to his first positions of power. The appointments would lead him to a notorious political squabble with an eventual US president, Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The Appointed One & The Fight with Roosevelt.

In 1924 Moses was appointed as the leader of both the Long Island State Park Commission and State Council of Parks. Moses actually drafted the legislation that created the power of these commission earlier in his career. Personally, when I read the names of these positions I didn’t immediately think POWER. But let’s remember that Moses was calculated. He strategically used the power that he did have to gain even more power. Being head of these political bodies allowed him unprecedented control over land-use and highway construction. Behind the scenes he usurped control over certain political entities from elected officials. Moses would lobby constituents, politicians, and special interest groups into allowing him to have independent control over land-use and highway development commissions. Overtime he began to resemble a mini dictator. However, his power wouldn’t go unchallenged.

Franklin Roosevelt, at the time leader of the Taconic State Parkway Commission, had a political spat with Moses. It all started when Roosevelt had a plan to build a parkway through a region of New York City called the Hudson Valley. Moses had different plans. He managed to funnel all the funds from Roosevelt’s project to his own project. Moses was able to keep the funding to Roosevelt’s project so low that it could barely even maintain operations. Roosevelt complained to the governor that Moses was “skinning” Smith’s administration alive. But nothing happened. Eventually, Roosevelt became governor and eventually his parkway project was completed. Roosevelt had another goal in mind, and that was to remove Moses from power. But the removal of Moses was almost impossible by the time Roosevelt became governor. Robert Moses had set up a powerful base of political independence by using legislation, public funding, the press, and young political reformers to support his positions. He would later spearhead a commission which aimed to consolidate 187 separate agencies into eighteen departments. In just 10 year’s Moses was able to absorb power from potential opponents and build a powerful network to get his projects done. But this was just the start there was much more to come from Robert Moses.

The Depression & Beyond

During the 1930’s the United States suffered an economic depression. During this economic catastrophe Robert Moses would blossom. Ironically, his former rival actually enabled this via New Deal legislation lead by President Roosevelt. Moses was granted even more executive and monetary incentive to solidify his power by the Federal Government. Roosevelt, not forgetting his political tenure in New York, attempted to get Moses ousted by making federal funds available only if Moses was removed from office. Moses wasn’t threatened. He told the press of Roosevelts demands. Subsequently, the Federal Government had to stop after increasing public pressure. But as World War II was being waged, Robert Moses’s influence on New York City began to take shape. The Master Builder started to work on his vision. One unnamed federal official commented on Moses during this era saying:

“Because Robert Moses was so far ahead of anyone else in the country, he had greater influence on urban renewal in the United States – on how the program developed and on how it was received by the public – than any other single person.”

That quote gives us an insight on the magnitude of power Moses had. He was responsible for many projects ranging from the United Nations Headquarters, Shea Stadium, and the Pratt Institute. But he also led initiatives to spur more highway developments, suburban housing developments, strip malls, and other public amenities. Moses got even better at getting projects done. A common strategy involved starting projects knowing that financially they couldn’t be accomplished , but he would leverage political clout in order to manipulate political officials to complete his projects anyway. While in the depression his projects employed a largely jobless populous during the Great Depression. During this era, he held numerous public positions at the same time. None of the positions required him to be publicly elected.

WWII & The New America

The world dramatically changed after World War II. The United States emerged as an economic and political powerhouse within the International community. Moses understood this and he wanted to further influence the new world around him. His goal for NYC was one that attempted to integrate an urban center to suburban areas which would all be interconnected via parkways. The bureaucrat’s vision would influence America for the years to come.

After World War II America’s social community began to change. Women entered the work force in droves, the nation was in better economic shape than a lot of nations in the world, and the ideal of “Americanness” began to solidify. What do I mean by Americanness? I mean white picket fences, increased home & automobile ownership, and the development of mass consumerism. After WWII plenty of soldiers came home to start anew. They were incentivized to start “nuclear” families, to buy homes, develop their market skills, and most importantly to spend money in order to expand the American economy. Robert Moses was fully aware of this societal shift. He saw the traditional layout of American cities as archaic and counter intuitive to the world’s economic demands. Small retail owners were dismissed in favor of shopping behemoths

download (1) — Robert Moses and NYC Mayor Jimmy Walker.

such as Macy’s, Sears, and the advent of the shopping mall. Local restaurants were forgotten as Dairy Queen and McDonalds slowly became staples in the American diet. Automobiles slowly eliminated the reliance on public transport, allowing people to buy suburban properties further away from NYC. Moses preferred a sprawl model over concentrated urban communities. And he developed plenty of projects to incentivize the sprawl model. New Yorkers, such as Robert Caro, criticize Moses for destroying New York neighborhoods in favor of vast highways that connected the suburbs to the City. When developing these projects Moses displaced hundreds of thousands of people, destroyed economic centers, and arguably community identity. This led critics to surmise that Moses perhaps preferred automobiles and shopping centers over people. Furthermore, Moses played a part in depleting New York’s resources to develop his projects. But despite that, the Moses model was in demand in post war America. Plenty of public officials from around the country demanded Robert Moses’s expertise in developing their city plans. This may explain why many American cities, especially in the Midwest, mirror each other in a plethora of ways.

In hindsight Moses’s city planning was a perfect model for a globalized economy. It was predictable; generally people would work a similar hourly schedule, consistently consume products from publicly traded corporations, and, by driving, consumers would

support the gas, oil, and automobile industry. This model has its merits. It’s predicable, safe, and allows people to consume their preferred products. However, a community too reliant on the Moses model is more susceptible to global economic crises. This isn’t just a theoretical proposition, practical examples are evident when we look at Detroit and Las Vegas during the 2008 financial crisis. But it’d be remiss to not mention how many new and innovative developments Moses was responsible for. He was able to engineer and execute massive urban plans that did help a considerable amount of people. But at the expense of displacing many people out of their communities. But one of the most disturbing things about Robert Moses is his ability to become an immensely influential political figure without having to get elected into political office.

Moses’s story forces us to think about the type of local (& perhaps national) governments people would prefer. Do we prefer governments that can be taken over by “Mosesesque” figures in order to get long term, and perhaps beneficial, projects done? Or do we want a system that is a bit more decentralized which doesn’t allow any one sole “political will” to dominate? Whatever you prefer, each has its positive and negative implication.

Which begs a peripheral question: How much do YOU know about the unelected officials in your local government? A question to consider.

Sources:

Power Broker by Robert Caro

ROBERT MOSES AND THE RISE OF NEW YORK THE POWER BROKER IN PERSPECTIVE by KENNETH T. JACKSON

A Consumer’s Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America by Lizabeth Cohen

https://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/environment/the-legacy-of-robert-moses/16018/

http://fordhampoliticalreview.org/the-legacy-of-robert-moses/

How The Supreme Court Justified Eugenics: The Curious Case Of ‘Buck V Bell’

It’s no secret that the U.S. Supreme Court has a tumultuous past with certain rulings. A few examples being the infamous Dred Scott case which erroneously reasoned that certain set of humans were deemed property, Hammer v Dager which justified child labor, or Plessy v Ferguson the case that set the precedent for Jim Crow. People who’ve taken an American History course will more or less be familiar with the aforementioned cases. However, there’s an ambiguous case titled ‘Buck v Bell’ that deals with the controversial topic of eugenics. If you aren’t familiar with eugenics it’s basically a method of social engineering used to create the “best” race of humans. The method being notoriously implemented by Nazi Germany. Interestingly enough, it wasn’t just Nazis trying to make these plans come to fruition. The U.S. legal system had to deal with the topic of eugenics. Here’s how they addressed it.

Historical Context

In order to get a full understanding of the case some historical context on eugenics is necessary. The theory of eugenics begins in the late 19th century, sometime after Charles Darwin publishes his magnum opus On the Origin of Species. During that time people rush to apply the theory of natural selection to human society. This movement gains traction throughout the western world. Peaking around the 1920’s. Universities in the USA begin to offer courses on eugenics. Increasing its popularity among academics. Despite the popularity of eugenics, academics begin to debate which humans were the superior ones. Some said the Anglos were & others argued that the Germans, Italians, Frenchs etc, were. Obviously in hindsight advancements in biology & genetics debunk all those aforementioned statements. But for the time this was the scientific truth. That lead the politicians of that era to make it their “moral” duty to prevent the degeneration of their race. This is similar to when the American Psychiatric Association classified homosexuality as a mental disorder in DSM III (published 1980), which falsely influenced societies perception on homosexuality. The same happened to eugenics in America. False research was given, debate ensued, and legislation was implemented which leads us to the curious case of ‘Buck v Bell’.

The Case

The case begins with Carrie Buck. A resident of The State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded at Lynchburg, Virginia which is headed by Albert Priddy. Carrie Buck finds herself at this institution after a series of unfortunate events in 1924. Buck, a victim of rape, became pregnant and her adopted family had her committed to the SCEFM due to the “immorality” of having a child out of wedlock ( turns out they falsified she was raped). While at the institution they discover she has the “mental age of a 9 year old”, Priddy is a staunch supporter of eugenical sterilization, and suggests sterilization of Ms Buck due to her “moral delinquency”. Reasoning that it was probably passed down from her mother who was also known to be promiscuous and “feeble minded”.

Priddy was warned by a court in 1918 of his personal liability in sterilization operations and stopped for some time. However, realizing an opportunity to legally validate his operations, he takes the Buck case to the board of SCEFM. At the hearing Priddy argued his case to the board and it’s approved. It is then taken to local circuit court where evidence provided by an “expert” detailed Buck’s “clear” lineage of moral delinquency. It also helped that Bucks consul (Irving Whitehead a founder of SCEFM) brought forth no arguments against Bell . The reason being was Whitehead sought the same end as Priddy; legal eugenical sterilization. The case would end up at the Supreme Court.

During the appeals process Mr. Priddy dies and the case is taken up by John H Bell. Who argues to the Court that due process was given to Buck and state police powers allowed them to protect and decide for persons such as Buck. Whitehead argued that institutions such as SCEFM could easily become havens where

” (The) worst forms of tyranny practiced…inaugurated in the name of science.” Furthermore, Bucks legal guardian argued that her right to procreate infringed on the due process clause of the constitution. Buck would lose the case 8-1. Supreme Court Justice Holmes writing for the court rejected Bucks arguments. The equal protection argument was shot down by Holmes because the policy applied to all within the institution. Furthermore, he adds that if the nation can call upon its “best citizens” in times of war, a lesser sacrifice can be made by those “lesser” that “sap the strength of society”.

The prevention of procreation is justified because “(t)hree generations of imbeciles are enough”. Strong words, iffy ruling.

Conclusion

After all was said and done Carrie Buck was sterilized in the name of eugenics. That ruling set the precedent for other states to enact similar laws. On the bright side after the Nazi’s were defeated and advancements in science, eugenics laws slowly began to fade. Despite this ‘Buck v Bell’ stands as the law of the land. The case has yet to be overturned.

Sources: The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions

Sapiens A Brief History of Human Kind by Yuval Noah Harari

Gerrymandering & Redistricting; A Supreme Court Affair

Gerrymandering, a technique that has helped fuel various political machines, is a topic of great debate within the Untied States. Gerrymandering on the surface is undemocratic. Allowing a political party that’s in power to redraw voting lines will naturally lead them to misuse their power. Partly because parties have used the technique to maintain political power by redrawing districts in their favor by diluting voting power. As was the case in 2011 in Wisconsin, where Republicans received a majority of house seats (60%) with only 49% of the state wide vote. How is this possible? Simple; Gerrymandering. It’s this overt case of the corrupt technique that has brought the debate to the Supreme Court. The Court plans to issue it’s ruling on Gill v. Whitford (The Wisconsin case) in June 2018. Whatever side the court rules on, one thing is for sure: it will set a monumental precedent in terms of governing in the USA. (I’ve included a video explaining gerrymandering further down below.)

However, gerrymandering has two sides. Interestingly enough it’s been used to empower disenfranchised voices that have been diluted (usually by gerrymandering). Though the Court didn’t directly state it, racial redistricting was deemed somewhat constitutional. Here’s how they justified it.

The case involved in the debate was called United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg v Carey. In short, Kings County administrators followed the District Attorneys of New York’s plan of redistricting (In conjunction with the Civil Rights Act). Part of the provision called for certain districts to reach a nonwhite majority of 65 percent. Coincidentally, a Hasidic Jewish community was located in one of these districts. The effect of the provision was that the community was split in half, and was reassigned to an adjoining district. The Jewish community would then bring a suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the 1974 plan violated their rights under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, arguing that the plan diluted their franchise. The case would soon make it’s self up the ladder to the eyes of the Supreme Court.

The Court tip toed on it reasoning of the case. For the sake of simplicity and to save you time on the legal jargon here are the main points of the Courts justification of New York’s redistricting plan:

The Court mentions that racial discriminatory redistricting is unconstitutional.
Since the redistricting follows the provisions in the Civil Rights Act it isn’t discriminatory but rather hopes to reverse discrimination.
So the use of racial criteria in drawing district lines may be required per Civil Rights Act (Specifically Voting Act)
Additionally, the use of racial criteria is not limited to remedies of explicit prior discrimination.
The use of numerical racial quotas in establishing certain black majority districts does not automatically violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments
The Court also says the constitution doesn’t recognize the Jewish Communities right to reapportionment as a separate entity.

Clearly the court relied heavily on the Civil Rights Act legislation and rightly so, in terms of the specific justification for enfranchisement of persecuted communities. But also seems to undermine the Jewish community. American history shows that those people haven’t necessarily been treated fairly either. Furthermore, gerrymandering is totally ignored in the Courts argument. Perhaps trying to devout their attention to the pressing societal challenges plaguing the era at the time. Racial tensions were high and The Court justified the means to combat racial injustice. However, in that pursuit the Court may have indirectly set a precedent for justifying gerrymandering.

In all, gerrymandering is a complicated and nuanced subject; making it justified in multiple idiosyncratic realms. But the core of the issue is undemocratic. It gives room for manipulation by people seeking to fulfill their own sinister interests. If those sinister acts are possible then shouldn’t it be abolished? We’ll see what the Supreme Court has to say when confronted with the core issue in June.

LINK

Sources: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/430/144.html

Imprisonment & Economics: The Art of Legislation

You are who you imprison. Well, that’s what Plato would’ve said if he would’ve written The Republic in the modern era. Actually maybe not, but he would’ve been able to see the connection between modern economics, legislation and imprisonment. Being the genius that he was he’d probably devise a theory about this correlation, it’d be lofty, and well articulated. But since he’s no longer with us you’ll have to settle for my condensed version.

The first aggressive and transparent instances of this correlation emerge around the age of Mercantilism. They would debut in the form of legislative mandates all across Europe, particularly the Anglo-sphere. Michele Foucault (Historian and author of Madness and Civlisation) argues and points out that during this period:

“The first houses of corrections were opened in England during a full economic recession. The act of 1610 recommended only certain mills and weaving & carding shops to all houses of correction in order to occupy the pensioners. But what had been a moral requirement became an economic tactic when commerce and industry recovered after 1651, the economic situation having been re-established by the Navigation act and the lowering of the discount rate. All able-bodied manpower was to be used to the best advantage, that is, as cheaply as possible. When John Carey established his workhouse project in Bristol he ranked the need for work first: “the poor of both sexes…. May be employed in beating hemp,dressing and spinning flax, or in carding wool and cotton”…Sometimes there were even arrangements which permitted private entrepreneurs to utilize the manpower of the asylums for their own profit” (Madness and Civilisation 52-53)

In a nutshell, Foucault emphasizes the interdependence between economics/legislation, and the effect they had on the development of correctional facilities in the age of Mercantilism. In this case an economic recession has hit England and in response the government passed legislation in order to regulate the economy. A fairly normal measure for governments trying to lessen the effects of an economic catastrophe. But it’s the methods that are deployed which raise cause for alarm.

In a desperate attempt to save the economy England outlawed abject poverty, homelessness, and “loose, idle and disordley behavior(the latter was never given a clear legal definition) . They sent all “offenders” to correctional facilities, where they were locked in a cell and forced to work . The proper terminology for this systemic means of punishment is called Poor Relief. It was a way for the government to absorb the “non productive” members of society into a system of regulated labor. That newly established labor pool was then used by the big businesses of the time to make a profit during the economic recession. These organizations would come into these ‘houses of correction’ and use the free prison labor enabling them to turn a profit during a recession. Basically they exploited the new source slave labor.

Additionally, Poor Relief should be looked at as a form of societal control in the face of economic hardship. By rounding up the impoverished of society, England was able to mask how catastrophic things were by forcing everyone to be economically productive. This enables a suppression of any societal/political agitation. After all people without jobs can’t protest the state of the economic climate if they’ve already been arrested for not having a job. That allowed England to ‘kill two birds with one stone’:( 1) because more of the population is able contribute to the economy (increasing economic efficiency) and (2 )the threat of civil unrest is suppressed. The first instances of modern mass incarceration have begun to take shape.

(in hindsight England was able to fully recover from their economic catastrophe)

Fast forward to the latter part of the 20th century. A time of extreme ideological tension across the globe. Perpetrated by an ongoing Cold War between two world superpowers, the USSR and the USA. During the Reagan administration the goal was clear; the Soviets had to be stopped. The administration would spend their time conducting extensive research to determine the Soviet’s systemic weaknesses. One of the weaknesses identified was an economic one. The administration figured out that by strangling the USSR with economic sanctions and making sure the US economy expanded at an exponential rate, the USA could win the Cold War. Rendering the Soviet economist Leonid Kantorovich’s Nobel prize winning work on optimal resource allocation useless. In hindsight, Reagan’s supply side economics (Reaganomics) would prove to be an effective strategy in the aim to stimulate and grow the American financial sector, albeit artificially. By stripping away and adding new red tape, laissez-faire economics dominated and took American capitalism to places it had never been before. Despite all that, some sectors of the American economy needed artificial legislative means to achieve that record growth.

In the 1980’s the number of arrests of drug offenses rose by 126% (National Council on Crime and Delinguency 1989). Mainly due to legislative acts such as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. It was a mandate which radically revised the American criminal code system;It gave the government more power in civil forfeiture, reinstated the federal death penalty, and increased federal penalties for cultivation, possession, or sale of Marijuana. This was an indirect effect of Reagan’s supply driven economic stimulus. Because in order for the USA to beat out the Soviets, the US market needed to be operating at near full capacity. That meant everyone was needed to contribute to the system. No matter who you were. What followed these mandates was the rapid development of the ‘for profit privatized prison industrial complex’ . In these new prisons a new criminal was cultivated to populate them, the non-violent drug offender. As the prison industry grew so did the abundance of this newly cultivated criminal. This in effect meant more free labor for the American economic system as prisons became a new place for corporations to use “outsourced” prison labor. Leading to even more diverse growth in the corporate structure. For example, if Walmart uses prison labor to create an assembly line for a product (which it does) , then that product is cheaper for consumers, which incentivizes them to shop at Walmart.

But a lot of the economic growth in this era was feigned under complicated laws which inflated economic statistics. An example of this would be corporate share buy back schemes. This financial technique is used by corporations to inflate numbers by buying shares of the company back from individuals who’ve bought them. Share prices are inflated because less shares are out in the public’s hands. But this alone doesn’t necessitate growth. The reason why the profit margins grow is because investors are ignorant of the fact that the company is buying back it’s own shares. Generally, if people were aware of that corporate behavior confidence in that corporation would diminish. Ideally you’ll want the company to invest it’s money on the product/service it’s providing in order to turn a profit. When a company starts buying back shares that shows a lack of focus in terms of direct capital accumulation from the business. Instead buying back shares shows that a firm is more focused on marketing the fact they are still profitable. A desperate attempt to save their reputation. In principal nothing is wrong with this. But it’s wrong when the US legislation allows corporations to mask the fact they are buying back shares. This allows corporations to lie and potentially defraud investors. But ever since the 1980’s share buybacks have been allowed to remain nontransparent. Practices such as these can result in big economic bubbles. This is especially concerning when considering the fact that Goldman Sachs has recently bought back $780 billion worth of it’s own shares to avoid public scrutiny, giving us insight that this behavior is alive and well in the 21st century. Subtly, there’s an implication that the prison system may not have even played a significant part in the economic war waged by the USSR and USA. If it did generate growth then it must’ve been minimal. What seemingly played a significant role is the non transparency of certain economic strategies, one of them being corporate buy back schemes. But the creation of the non violent drug offender allowed the US private prison system a new source of labor, and therefore created growth within that industry. Nevertheless, Reaganomics resulted in a exponential growth for the American economy, one of the key factors that resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just another concrete example of the relationship shared between legislation, economics, and imprisonment.

In all, when economic instability is on the horizon, one should expect a response from those controlling the resources within a given society. This response will often translate into laws and it’s effect can be easily mapped overtime.

(Sources)

Madness and Civilisation By Michelle Foucault

The 1989 NCCD Prison Population Forecast: The Impact of the War on Drugs By James Austin Aaron David McVey