thenation--2020-09-09--Remove Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, by Any Legal or Constitutional Means Necessary

It is absurd to ask whether Postmaster General Louis DeJoy should remain in a position where this increasingly scandal-plagued mega-donor to Donald Trump ’ s campaigns might further mangle the postal system on the eve of an election in which the president ’ s fate could rise or fall based on voting by mail .
The postmaster general ’ s scheming to dismantle the Postal Service has been well documented .
“ Postmaster General DeJoy ’ s mid-July implementation of a series of new policies slowed down and delayed the mail , ” notes Mark Dimondstein , the president of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These included the arbitrary canceling of overtime , limiting mail transportation runs , and demands that everything run on time , even if it meant leaving large quantities of mail undelivered.
” The postmaster general ’ s conflicts of interest have been well documented .
“ The USPS paid XPO Logistics $ 14,000,000 in just the past 10 weeks .
Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has up to $ 75,000,000 invested in XPO Logistics , ” explains Public Citizen .
“ This is a blatant rigging of the public sphere for direct and substantial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of campaign finance violations that point to corruption on a scale that could land DeJoy in jail .
An investigation by The Washington Post , which was reported over the weekend , reveals that What DeJoy ’ s employees describe is known as a “ straw donor ” scheme .
It is a violation of federal law and of state law in North Carolina , where DeJoy is alleged to have committed the crimes .
“ Such federal violations carry a five-year statute of limitations , ” observes the Post .
“ There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Carolina for felonies , including campaign finance violations.
” Wisconsin ’ s Lieutenant Governor Talks About the Kenosha Protests and What Happens Next The 2020 DNC Was a Convention of Small Ideas—and Voters Deserved More North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein says the latest allegation against DeJoy “ merits investigations.
” So the postmaster general , who was already in a lot of trouble , is now in a lot more trouble .
And DeJoy ’ s problems extend beyond the legal realm .
When the postmaster general testified last month at a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had deliberately undermined the postal service in the run-up to the election , Representative Jim Cooper , a Tennessee Democrat , asked , “ Did you pay back several of your top executives for contributing to Trump ’ s campaign by bonus-ing or rewarding them ?
” The postmaster general replied , “ That ’ s an outrageous claim , sir , and I resent it.
” Then he said , “ The answer is ‘ no.
’ ” If the revelations in the Post story are right , DeJoy lied to Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , be further investigations .
Yet , as the evidence of DeJoy ’ s high crimes and misdemeanors mounts , the most urgent question is how to deal with the threat he poses to the Postal Service and to American democracy .
Representative Ro Khanna , a key member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform , has the answer .
DeJoy does not appear to be inclined to resign , and he still has some defenders in Congress—like Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson , a Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Oversight and Government Reform Committee chair Carolyn Maloney of New York says , “ If these allegations are true , Mr. DeJoy could face criminal exposure—not only for his actions in North Carolina , but also for lying to our committee under oath.
” Maloney adds : “ We will be investigating this issue , but I believe the Board of Governors must take emergency action to immediately suspend Mr. DeJoy , who they never should have selected in the first place.
” Unfortunately , as CNBC reports , “ five of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including Chairman Robert Duncan , are linked to GOP and Trump circles through various campaign , legal and financial connections.
” So the resignation and suspension options may be off the table—for now .
And prosecution at the federal or state level takes time .
That means that impeachment , the constitutional remedy for precisely this circumstance , should be on the table .
DeJoy is a “ civil officer ” and is clearly impeachable under Article 2 , Section 4 .
He stands accused of committing crimes and of lying to Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he has abused his position in order to benefit a political ally and benefactor , Donald Trump .
In addition , there is daunting evidence that he has done harm to an agency that was outlined in Article 1 , Section 8 .
Congress has always been cautious about using the impeachment power for its intended purpose of holding the powerful to account for wrongdoing—and for preventing additional wrongdoing .
That caution may be greater now that the House ’ s impeachment of President Trump , however legitimate , was upended by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the partisan cabal he leads .
Donald Trump and His Postmaster General Are Sabotaging Democracy in Plain Sight In this particular case , however , a House impeachment vote could serve the consequential purpose of forcing members of the chamber to take a stand on whether DeJoy should be removed .
The Postal Service is incredibly popular , and it is especially popular in rural areas where Republican members of the House are running for reelection this fall .
That might force a few of them , perhaps many of them , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ refused to do so as reckless partisans who would sacrifice the Postal Service to serve Donald Trump ’ s ends .
If impeachment is too bold a move for House Democrats—and boldness at election time is not something the current Democratic leadership is known for—there is a final alternative .
At the very least , the House could vote to censure or rebuke DeJoy or , even better , to demand his resignation .
A simple resolution along these lines would highlight urgent concerns regarding DeJoy ’ s continued service .
While it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebuking , or otherwise challenging DeJoy—which has no basis in the Constitution or the rules of the House—is insufficient to hold the postmaster general to account , the vote on such a resolution could hold to account the congressional Republicans who are covering for him .
That might create just enough pressure on DeJoy—who no one doubts is an exceptionally loyal Republican—to take the hint and resign .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
It is absurd to ask whether Postmaster General Louis DeJoy should remain in a position where this increasingly scandal-plagued mega-donor to Donald Trump’s campaigns might further mangle the postal system on the eve of an election in which the president’s fate could rise or fall based on voting by mail.
The postmaster general’s scheming to dismantle the Postal Service has been well documented. “Postmaster General DeJoy’s mid-July implementation of a series of new policies slowed down and delayed the mail,” notes Mark Dimondstein, the president of the American Postal Workers Union. “These included the arbitrary canceling of overtime, limiting mail transportation runs, and demands that everything run on time, even if it meant leaving large quantities of mail undelivered.”
The postmaster general’s conflicts of interest have been well documented. “The USPS paid XPO Logistics $14,000,000 in just the past 10 weeks. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has up to $75,000,000 invested in XPO Logistics,” explains Public Citizen. “This is a blatant rigging of the public sphere for direct and substantial private gain.”
Now comes explosive evidence of campaign finance violations that point to corruption on a scale that could land DeJoy in jail. An investigation by The Washington Post, which was reported over the weekend, reveals that
Louis DeJoy’s prolific campaign fundraising, which helped position him as a top Republican power broker in North Carolina and ultimately as head of the U.S. Postal Service, was bolstered for more than a decade by a practice that left many employees feeling pressured to make political contributions to GOP candidates—money DeJoy later reimbursed through bonuses, former employees say.
What DeJoy’s employees describe is known as a “straw donor” scheme. It is a violation of federal law and of state law in North Carolina, where DeJoy is alleged to have committed the crimes. “Such federal violations carry a five-year statute of limitations,” observes the Post. “There is no statute of limitations in North Carolina for felonies, including campaign finance violations.” More From John Nichols A GOP Debate Without Trump Is the Definition of Pointlessness August 11, 2023 A Win for Abortion Rights, a Win for Democracy: Ohio Voters Reject Issue 1 August 9, 2023 The Biggest Threat to Donald Trump Could Be the Constitution Itself August 4, 2023
North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein says the latest allegation against DeJoy “merits investigations.”
So the postmaster general, who was already in a lot of trouble, is now in a lot more trouble. And DeJoy’s problems extend beyond the legal realm. When the postmaster general testified last month at a House hearing that examined allegations that he had deliberately undermined the postal service in the run-up to the election, Representative Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat, asked, “Did you pay back several of your top executives for contributing to Trump’s campaign by bonus-ing or rewarding them?” The postmaster general replied, “That’s an outrageous claim, sir, and I resent it.” Then he said, “The answer is ‘no.’” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
If the revelations in the Post story are right, DeJoy lied to Congress.
There will, necessarily and undoubtedly, be further investigations. Yet, as the evidence of DeJoy’s high crimes and misdemeanors mounts, the most urgent question is how to deal with the threat he poses to the Postal Service and to American democracy.
Representative Ro Khanna, a key member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, has the answer.
“DeJoy,” says Khanna, “must be removed immediately.”
DeJoy does not appear to be inclined to resign, and he still has some defenders in Congress—like Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican.
But the House has options. Oversight and Government Reform Committee chair Carolyn Maloney of New York says, “If these allegations are true, Mr. DeJoy could face criminal exposure—not only for his actions in North Carolina, but also for lying to our committee under oath.”
Maloney adds: “We will be investigating this issue, but I believe the Board of Governors must take emergency action to immediately suspend Mr. DeJoy, who they never should have selected in the first place.” Current Issue View our current issue
Unfortunately, as CNBC reports, “five of the six members of the board, including Chairman Robert Duncan, are linked to GOP and Trump circles through various campaign, legal and financial connections.”
So the resignation and suspension options may be off the table—for now. And prosecution at the federal or state level takes time.
That means that impeachment, the constitutional remedy for precisely this circumstance, should be on the table. DeJoy is a “civil officer” and is clearly impeachable under Article 2, Section 4. He stands accused of committing crimes and of lying to Congress. There is more than enough evidence that he has abused his position in order to benefit a political ally and benefactor, Donald Trump. In addition, there is daunting evidence that he has done harm to an agency that was outlined in Article 1, Section 8.
Congress has always been cautious about using the impeachment power for its intended purpose of holding the powerful to account for wrongdoing—and for preventing additional wrongdoing. That caution may be greater now that the House’s impeachment of President Trump, however legitimate, was upended by the Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell and the partisan cabal he leads. Postmaster Donald Trump and His Postmaster General Are Sabotaging Democracy in Plain Sight John Nichols
In this particular case, however, a House impeachment vote could serve the consequential purpose of forcing members of the chamber to take a stand on whether DeJoy should be removed. The Postal Service is incredibly popular, and it is especially popular in rural areas where Republican members of the House are running for reelection this fall. That might force a few of them, perhaps many of them, to abandon DeJoy—and it would identify those who refused to do so as reckless partisans who would sacrifice the Postal Service to serve Donald Trump’s ends.
If impeachment is too bold a move for House Democrats—and boldness at election time is not something the current Democratic leadership is known for—there is a final alternative. At the very least, the House could vote to censure or rebuke DeJoy or, even better, to demand his resignation. A simple resolution along these lines would highlight urgent concerns regarding DeJoy’s continued service. While it is true that a resolution censuring, rebuking, or otherwise challenging DeJoy—which has no basis in the Constitution or the rules of the House—is insufficient to hold the postmaster general to account, the vote on such a resolution could hold to account the congressional Republicans who are covering for him. That might create just enough pressure on DeJoy—who no one doubts is an exceptionally loyal Republican—to take the hint and resign.


thenation--2020-09-09--For Trump, Defaming His Rape Accuser Is Part of His Job

Yesterday , on his last day to appeal a New York state court ruling ordering him to produce documents and a DNA sample as a defendant in an ongoing defamation suit , Donald Trump did the unthinkable : He fired his private attorneys , replaced them with Department of Justice lackeys , and argued that the statements and smears he made against the woman who sued him were done in his official capacity as president of the United States .
To break it down still further : Trump is saying that demeaning and lying about a woman who has credibly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his job as president , and therefore he can not be sued over his statements .
He ’ s making taxpayers foot the bill for this defense .
There is now no meaningful distinction between Trump the person and the US government .
Somewhere , King George III is wondering why we threw away his tea .
The defamation suit Trump is trying to dodge is the one filed by author E. Jean Carroll last fall .
Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s .
In response to the allegations , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went into the usual round of angry denials that we ’ ve seen after each of the 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct came forward .
Trump called Carroll a liar and claimed that he had never met her .
There ’ s a photo of the two of them together in the ’ 80s , because if Donald Trump says he never met someone , you can almost bank on there being a photo of the two of them together .
Carroll sued Trump for defamation last November over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump argued , as he always does , that a sitting president is entitled to civil immunity for his private behavior .
That is the argument he lost in front of a New York court last month .
It was always obvious that Trump was going to lose .
We knew he was going to lose because Bill Clinton lost on the same argument more than 20 years ago .
Clinton argued that as a sitting president , he could not be sued by Paula Jones over his private conduct—in that case , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went all the way to the Supreme Court , where the court ruled unanimously that a sitting president had no such immunity .
After losing , however , President Clinton did not enlist the Department of Justice to substitute for his private defense lawyers .
He did not ask US taxpayers to support his web of lies .
And if he had asked the DOJ to run interference for him , I imagine Janet Reno would have told Slick Willy precisely where he could stick it .
There is no law that allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in this way .
It ’ s illegal in the same way it ’ s illegal for the president to claim the right to consummate any marriage that takes place within his realm .
There ’ s no statute that says “ droit du seigneur is prohibited in these lands , ” because we don ’ t need one : It ’ s just not a power inherent to the office of the president of the United States .
The presidency is an office whose powers are limited to those conferred in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point to a specific constitutional grant , he does not have the authority .
You can tell Trump has no legal authority for the move because the court papers filed yesterday by Attorney General William Barr and the DOJ effectively try to invent the authority they suddenly claim to have .
The DOJ argues that the Federal Tort Claims Act grants the president , and every federal employee , immunity from private lawsuits .
They then insist that since the president is claiming Federal Tort Claim immunity , he is entitled to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is fallacious , and insultingly so , but you have to know a little bit about the Federal Tort Claims Act to understand why .
The act does indeed grant all government employees personal immunity from civil lawsuits , but that immunity extends only to civil lawsuits arising out of their government responsibilities .
It exists so that one of these live-free-or-die fools can ’ t sue the head of the IRS personally for “ theft ” over enforcement of tax laws .
It exists so that the head of the zoning board @ @ @ @ @ @ @ homeowner who is angry because they can ’ t build a zeppelin mooring mast on top of their McMansion .
It exists because we live in a litigious society and workaday government employees shouldn ’ t need to keep a lawyer on retainer to protect them from whatever crazy conspiracy QAnon comes up with next .
The Federal Tort Claims Act is there for government employees who do their jobs—not ones who spend their days watching Fox News while calling their sexual assault accusers “ ugly ” and tweeting on a toilet bowl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their private actions , they are not protected by the statute and they do not get access to government lawyers .
While there is a case of a congressman ’ s getting FTCA protection for defamatory statements he made regarding Hezbollah , we haven ’ t seen elected officials try to stretch immunity to cover their private sex lives .
There have been quite a few government employees accused of sexual assault over the years , and none of them have had the DOJ come riding to their rescue .
It would , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government employee protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act got a government lawyer every time they were accused of private misconduct .
I fully expect Trump to lose this argument , just like he ’ s lost all the other ones in this case .
It ’ s a bad argument and would set an untenable precedent for future presidents and for every government employee in the country .
Still , focusing simply on the faulty legal reasoning of the argument somehow fails to grasp the full depth of Trump ’ s and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The statement from Carroll ’ s lawyer , Roberta Kaplan ( who , full disclosure , I believe is one of the best attorneys in the country ) , starts to get at the true despotic nature of what is going on here .
Kaplan says : We can ’ t lose sight of the fact that Trump is being accused of rape .
We can ’ t forget that Trump is bringing the full weight of the federal government down upon a single woman to defend himself from rape accusations after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and bullying failed to bring about the desired result .
Trump , the defendant , is getting due process , but that ’ s not enough for him .
He wants immunity from ever having to even answer for these charges , and he ’ s now willing to use lawyers from the Department of Justice—which is there to prosecute mobsters and terrorists—to achieve his goals .
We also can ’ t forget that should this dumpster fire of an argument make it all the way to the Supreme Court , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has also been credibly accused of rape waiting there to protect the president .
We can ’ t overlook the personal trauma Trump is willing to cause Carroll—and we also must think about the damage Trump is willing to inflict on the whole country .
If this is what Trump is willing to do when he realizes he has no valid basis to appeal a lawsuit , what will he be willing to do when he realizes that he has no valid way to win an election ?
What will he do should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has no valid way to stay in power ?
If Barr is willing to use the Justice Department for this kind of lawlessness to protect Trump from having to sit in a deposition , what will Barr be willing to do to help him stay in power ?
And what will Secretary of Defense Mike Esper be willing to do ?
What will Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley be willing to do ?
What evidence do we have that these men aren ’ t every bit as craven and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have that the sycophantic Republican Party has the strength or dignity to stand up to Trump ’ s abuses of power ?
History tells us that it is during the last days of a despotic regime that things get really bad .
It ’ s when the strongman starts to lose his grip on power that his paranoia and desperation lead to the most suffering and the highest body counts .
As Trump starts to feel the legal and electoral walls close in around him , he ’ ll become ever more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or his military is willing to stand up to Trump and his ruling junta now , the transition of power , whenever it comes , will not be peaceful .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Yesterday, on his last day to appeal a New York state court ruling ordering him to produce documents and a DNA sample as a defendant in an ongoing defamation suit, Donald Trump did the unthinkable: He fired his private attorneys, replaced them with Department of Justice lackeys, and argued that the statements and smears he made against the woman who sued him were done in his official capacity as president of the United States.
To break it down still further: Trump is saying that demeaning and lying about a woman who has credibly accused him of rape is part of his job as president, and therefore he cannot be sued over his statements. He’s making taxpayers foot the bill for this defense. There is now no meaningful distinction between Trump the person and the US government. Somewhere, King George III is wondering why we threw away his tea.
The defamation suit Trump is trying to dodge is the one filed by author E. Jean Carroll last fall. Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s. In response to the allegations, which Carroll published last summer, Trump went into the usual round of angry denials that we’ve seen after each of the 25 women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct came forward. Trump called Carroll a liar and claimed that he had never met her.
There’s a photo of the two of them together in the ’80s, because if Donald Trump says he never met someone, you can almost bank on there being a photo of the two of them together.
Carroll sued Trump for defamation last November over his apparent lies about their meeting. Trump argued, as he always does, that a sitting president is entitled to civil immunity for his private behavior. That is the argument he lost in front of a New York court last month.
It was always obvious that Trump was going to lose. We knew he was going to lose because Bill Clinton lost on the same argument more than 20 years ago. Clinton argued that as a sitting president, he could not be sued by Paula Jones over his private conduct—in that case, alleged sexual harassment. Clinton v. Jones went all the way to the Supreme Court, where the court ruled unanimously that a sitting president had no such immunity.
After losing, however, President Clinton did not enlist the Department of Justice to substitute for his private defense lawyers. He did not ask US taxpayers to support his web of lies. And if he had asked the DOJ to run interference for him, I imagine Janet Reno would have told Slick Willy precisely where he could stick it. Current Issue View our current issue
There is no law that allows Trump to use the Department of Justice in this way. It’s illegal in the same way it’s illegal for the president to claim the right to consummate any marriage that takes place within his realm. There’s no statute that says “droit du seigneur is prohibited in these lands,” because we don’t need one: It’s just not a power inherent to the office of the president of the United States. The presidency is an office whose powers are limited to those conferred in the Constitution, so unless the president can point to a specific constitutional grant, he does not have the authority. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
You can tell Trump has no legal authority for the move because the court papers filed yesterday by Attorney General William Barr and the DOJ effectively try to invent the authority they suddenly claim to have.
The DOJ argues that the Federal Tort Claims Act grants the president, and every federal employee, immunity from private lawsuits. They then insist that since the president is claiming Federal Tort Claim immunity, he is entitled to be represented by the government.
Their argument is fallacious, and insultingly so, but you have to know a little bit about the Federal Tort Claims Act to understand why. The act does indeed grant all government employees personal immunity from civil lawsuits, but that immunity extends only to civil lawsuits arising out of their government responsibilities. It exists so that one of these live-free-or-die fools can’t sue the head of the IRS personally for “theft” over enforcement of tax laws. It exists so that the head of the zoning board doesn’t get sued by a homeowner who is angry because they can’t build a zeppelin mooring mast on top of their McMansion. It exists because we live in a litigious society and workaday government employees shouldn’t need to keep a lawyer on retainer to protect them from whatever crazy conspiracy QAnon comes up with next.
The Federal Tort Claims Act is there for government employees who do their jobs—not ones who spend their days watching Fox News while calling their sexual assault accusers “ugly” and tweeting on a toilet bowl.
When government employees are sued for their private actions, they are not protected by the statute and they do not get access to government lawyers. While there is a case of a congressman’s getting FTCA protection for defamatory statements he made regarding Hezbollah, we haven’t seen elected officials try to stretch immunity to cover their private sex lives. There have been quite a few government employees accused of sexual assault over the years, and none of them have had the DOJ come riding to their rescue. It would, in fact, be unworkable if every government employee protected by the Federal Tort Claims Act got a government lawyer every time they were accused of private misconduct.
I fully expect Trump to lose this argument, just like he’s lost all the other ones in this case. It’s a bad argument and would set an untenable precedent for future presidents and for every government employee in the country.
Still, focusing simply on the faulty legal reasoning of the argument somehow fails to grasp the full depth of Trump’s and Barr’s debasement of their offices. The statement from Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan (who, full disclosure, I believe is one of the best attorneys in the country), starts to get at the true despotic nature of what is going on here. Kaplan says:
We can’t lose sight of the fact that Trump is being accused of rape. We can’t forget that Trump is bringing the full weight of the federal government down upon a single woman to defend himself from rape accusations after the usual tactics of screaming, shaming, and bullying failed to bring about the desired result. Trump, the defendant, is getting due process, but that’s not enough for him. He wants immunity from ever having to even answer for these charges, and he’s now willing to use lawyers from the Department of Justice—which is there to prosecute mobsters and terrorists—to achieve his goals.
We also can’t forget that should this dumpster fire of an argument make it all the way to the Supreme Court, there will be at least one person who has also been credibly accused of rape waiting there to protect the president.
We can’t overlook the personal trauma Trump is willing to cause Carroll—and we also must think about the damage Trump is willing to inflict on the whole country. If this is what Trump is willing to do when he realizes he has no valid basis to appeal a lawsuit, what will he be willing to do when he realizes that he has no valid way to win an election? What will he do should he lose that election and realize he has no valid way to stay in power? If Barr is willing to use the Justice Department for this kind of lawlessness to protect Trump from having to sit in a deposition, what will Barr be willing to do to help him stay in power?
And what will Secretary of Defense Mike Esper be willing to do? What will Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley be willing to do? What evidence do we have that these men aren’t every bit as craven and depraved as Barr? What evidence do we have that the sycophantic Republican Party has the strength or dignity to stand up to Trump’s abuses of power?
History tells us that it is during the last days of a despotic regime that things get really bad. It’s when the strongman starts to lose his grip on power that his paranoia and desperation lead to the most suffering and the highest body counts. As Trump starts to feel the legal and electoral walls close in around him, he’ll become ever more dangerous.
If nobody in his party or his military is willing to stand up to Trump and his ruling junta now, the transition of power, whenever it comes, will not be peaceful.


thenation--2020-09-09--Trump’s Fake Anti-War Posturing Works for Him

In his Labor Day press briefing , Donald Trump blasted the top brass of the American military in terms rarely heard outside of the most radical pacifist sects , describing the Pentagon leadership as greedy warmongers .
The context for Trump ’ s remarks was his hostile response to reports that he had called fallen soldiers “ losers ” and suckers.
” As Trump explained to the press , “ I ’ m not saying the military is in love with me , the soldiers are .
The top people in the Pentagon probably aren ’ t because they want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else , stay happy.
” Trump used similar terms to attack his rival Joe Biden , saying the Democratic presidential nominee “ sent our youth to fight in these crazy , endless wars.
” The same day , Trump retweeted a Glenn Greenwald post that featured a video of Dwight Eisenhower denouncing the military-industrial complex .
Trump ’ s claims to be a closet peacenik might seem improbable to his opponents , but they have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he started running for president in 2015 .
In competing for the Republican nomination that year , he distinguished himself from his rivals by claiming , falsely , to have opposed the Iraq War .
About that war , Trump said , “ We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East—we ’ ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity .
The people that have been killed , the people that have been wiped away—and for what ?
” In August , the Trump campaign released Facebook ads that appropriated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 1960s .
“ President Trump will NEVER stop fighting to restore peace around the world , and now he needs to know he has your support !
” one ad read .
“ Sign NOW to show your support for the end of ENDLESS WARS !
” Trump ’ s Vile Military Comments Are a Window Into His Soul Mark Zuckerberg Has Set Our Democracy On Fire It ’ s easy enough to denounce Trump ’ s anti-war posturing as hypocritical , indeed as outright fraudulent .
He is , after all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hostilities against Iran and China in ways that could easily lead to war .
As Politico details , “ Since becoming president , Donald Trump has overseen historic increases in defense budgets , fawned over military equipment , installed a number of defense industry insiders in top Pentagon positions and made a major push to sell weapons overseas.
” Surveying Trump ’ s record , Ryan Cooper of The Week argues that the president “ does not actually care at all about corrupt contractors or seriously rolling back the last 20 years of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moderate aversion to starting new full-blown ground invasions , and has occasionally withdrawn a few troops here and there—but he also likes drone assassinations , which have sharply increased under his administration , both in tempo and in the rate of civilian casualties.
” But these charges of hypocrisy carry limited weight given how many voters buy what Trump is selling , even if it can be shown to be a shoddy product .
Trump is a con man , but his con only works because it answers to real needs .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cures for diseases that flummox the medical establishment .
The bipartisan mainstream political establishment refuses to take up the cause of scaling back the American empire , creating an opening for mountebanks like Trump .
Trump keeps up the absurd pretense of being anti-war because he knows that after nearly 20 years of the interminable War on Terror , many Americans are attracted to the argument that the country should avoid feckless imperial adventures and adopt a less interventionist foreign policy .
In 2016 , Trump was able to get away with claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record .
In 2020 , he has a record , but one where the consequences of his actions are ambiguous enough that he can still hope to fool some voters .
He hasn ’ t started any large-scale wars .
The ramp up in violence under Trump has been through drones , a continuation of Barack Obama ’ s policy and much more acceptable to voters than full-scale conflicts with high American casualties .
A 2017 study by Boston University political science professor Douglas Krinera and University of Minnesota Law professor Francis Shen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posturing helped him win the presidency .
In their study , which was posted on the Social Science Research Network , Krinera and Shen correlated support for Trump with counties that had suffered high rates of military casualties in the 21st century .
“ Even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations , ” they write , “ we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community ’ s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump .
Indeed , our results suggest that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victory—Pennsylvania , Michigan , and Wisconsin—had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate , all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House.
” Trump has been able to get away with his anti-war con game because Democrats , with the notable exception of Bernie Sanders , have been reluctant to attack him as a warmonger .
Instead , both Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 have focused not on Trump ’ s belligerence but his personal character flaws : his erratic behavior , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly corrupt ties to foreign dictators .
These are all worth criticizing , but to focus on them at the expense of calling out Trump ’ s fake anti-war rhetoric is to cede valuable political space to Trump .
Mainstream Democrats like Clinton and Biden are shy of tackling Trump on these grounds because they think there is more political advantage to be gained from winning over disaffected Republicans , many of whom are national security hawks .
Clinton and Biden have both gone so far as to try to out-hawk Trump .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Palestinians , while Biden has suggested that Trump has been too soft on China .
The shortsighted pursuit of Republican hawks means that the only major-party presidential candidate who can speak to popular anti-war sentiment is Trump .
As Matt Duss , foreign policy adviser to Bernie Sanders , notes , “ DC interventionists see Trump ’ s fake appeals to antiwar sentiment as a cynical opportunity to discredit those ideas .
We should see them as proof that a broad , transpartisan antiwar coalition is in the making , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] consensus can be built.
” Perversely , we ’ re in a situation where Trump is president but running as a critic of an unpopular foreign policy consensus , while Biden is the challenger who wants to uphold the status quo .
The devil should never be allowed to get all the good tunes , and Trump certainly shouldn ’ t be the main anti-war voice in American politics .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
In his Labor Day press briefing, Donald Trump blasted the top brass of the American military in terms rarely heard outside of the most radical pacifist sects, describing the Pentagon leadership as greedy warmongers. The context for Trump’s remarks was his hostile response to reports that he had called fallen soldiers “losers” and suckers.”
As Trump explained to the press, “I’m not saying the military is in love with me, the soldiers are. The top people in the Pentagon probably aren’t because they want to do nothing but fight wars so that all of those wonderful companies that make the bombs and make the planes and make everything else, stay happy.” Trump used similar terms to attack his rival Joe Biden, saying the Democratic presidential nominee “sent our youth to fight in these crazy, endless wars.” The same day, Trump retweeted a Glenn Greenwald post that featured a video of Dwight Eisenhower denouncing the military-industrial complex.
Trump’s claims to be a closet peacenik might seem improbable to his opponents, but they have been a part of his political brand since he started running for president in 2015. In competing for the Republican nomination that year, he distinguished himself from his rivals by claiming, falsely, to have opposed the Iraq War. About that war, Trump said, “We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East—we’ve done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away—and for what?”
In August, the Trump campaign released Facebook ads that appropriated the psychedelic look of anti-war posters in the 1960s. “President Trump will NEVER stop fighting to restore peace around the world, and now he needs to know he has your support!” one ad read. “Sign NOW to show your support for the end of ENDLESS WARS!” More From Jeet Heer The Indigenous Roots of Robbie Robertson’s Rock and Roll Revolution August 14, 2023 Why Does This Racist Keep Getting Silicon Valley Money? August 11, 2023 When Phallocrats Go Limp August 4, 2023
It’s easy enough to denounce Trump’s anti-war posturing as hypocritical, indeed as outright fraudulent. He is, after all, the president who has recklessly escalated hostilities against Iran and China in ways that could easily lead to war. As Politico details, “Since becoming president, Donald Trump has overseen historic increases in defense budgets, fawned over military equipment, installed a number of defense industry insiders in top Pentagon positions and made a major push to sell weapons overseas.” Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
Surveying Trump’s record, Ryan Cooper of The Week argues that the president “does not actually care at all about corrupt contractors or seriously rolling back the last 20 years of pointless war. He seems to have a moderate aversion to starting new full-blown ground invasions, and has occasionally withdrawn a few troops here and there—but he also likes drone assassinations, which have sharply increased under his administration, both in tempo and in the rate of civilian casualties.”
But these charges of hypocrisy carry limited weight given how many voters buy what Trump is selling, even if it can be shown to be a shoddy product. Trump is a con man, but his con only works because it answers to real needs. Quack doctors usually make money by offering cures for diseases that flummox the medical establishment. The bipartisan mainstream political establishment refuses to take up the cause of scaling back the American empire, creating an opening for mountebanks like Trump. Current Issue View our current issue
Trump keeps up the absurd pretense of being anti-war because he knows that after nearly 20 years of the interminable War on Terror, many Americans are attracted to the argument that the country should avoid feckless imperial adventures and adopt a less interventionist foreign policy.
In 2016, Trump was able to get away with claiming to be anti-war because he had no record. In 2020, he has a record, but one where the consequences of his actions are ambiguous enough that he can still hope to fool some voters. He hasn’t started any large-scale wars. The ramp up in violence under Trump has been through drones, a continuation of Barack Obama’s policy and much more acceptable to voters than full-scale conflicts with high American casualties.
A 2017 study by Boston University political science professor Douglas Krinera and University of Minnesota Law professor Francis Shen offered evidence that Trump’s anti-war posturing helped him win the presidency. In their study, which was posted on the Social Science Research Network, Krinera and Shen correlated support for Trump with counties that had suffered high rates of military casualties in the 21st century. “Even controlling in a statistical model for many other alternative explanations,” they write, “we find that there is a significant and meaningful relationship between a community’s rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump. Indeed, our results suggest that if three states key to Trump’s victory—Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate, all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House.”
Trump has been able to get away with his anti-war con game because Democrats, with the notable exception of Bernie Sanders, have been reluctant to attack him as a warmonger. Instead, both Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 have focused not on Trump’s belligerence but his personal character flaws: his erratic behavior, his alienation of allies, and his possibly corrupt ties to foreign dictators.
These are all worth criticizing, but to focus on them at the expense of calling out Trump’s fake anti-war rhetoric is to cede valuable political space to Trump. Mainstream Democrats like Clinton and Biden are shy of tackling Trump on these grounds because they think there is more political advantage to be gained from winning over disaffected Republicans, many of whom are national security hawks. Clinton and Biden have both gone so far as to try to out-hawk Trump. Clinton argued that Trump was too friendly to the Palestinians, while Biden has suggested that Trump has been too soft on China.
The shortsighted pursuit of Republican hawks means that the only major-party presidential candidate who can speak to popular anti-war sentiment is Trump.
As Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser to Bernie Sanders, notes, “DC interventionists see Trump’s fake appeals to antiwar sentiment as a cynical opportunity to discredit those ideas. We should see them as proof that a broad, transpartisan antiwar coalition is in the making, and a new and durable [foreign policy] consensus can be built.”
Perversely, we’re in a situation where Trump is president but running as a critic of an unpopular foreign policy consensus, while Biden is the challenger who wants to uphold the status quo. The devil should never be allowed to get all the good tunes, and Trump certainly shouldn’t be the main anti-war voice in American politics.


thenation--2020-09-09--How the Biden Campaign Can Turn Trump’s ‘Strength’ Into a Weakness

Political strategist Karl Rove famously advised attacking an opponent ’ s strength and turning it into a weakness .
Joe @ @ @ @ @ Polls find President Trump leading Biden in one area .
It isn ’ t character @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s the economy .
Trump , of course , trumpets the pre-pandemic @ @ @ @ @ .
Facts show this isn ’ t true .
And while Trump presents himself as @ @ @ @ @ Americans , his policies are largely drawn from the traditional conservative playbook and benefit the @ @ @ @ @ look at how his promises to forgotten workers have been broken .
Read the full @ @ @ @ @ column here .

EDITOR’S NOTE: Each week we cross-post an excerpt from Katrina vanden Heuvel’s column at the WashingtonPost.com. Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
Political strategist Karl Rove famously advised attacking an opponent’s strength and turning it into a weakness. Joe Biden should take note.
Polls find President Trump leading Biden in one area. It isn’t character, competence or the coronavirus. It’s the economy.
Trump, of course, trumpets the pre-pandemic economy as the greatest ever. Facts show this isn’t true. And while Trump presents himself as a populist fighting for working Americans, his policies are largely drawn from the traditional conservative playbook and benefit the few. Let’s look at how his promises to forgotten workers have been broken.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.


The Wrong Lesson

oulder , olo.—The call to action my generation received , during our first moment of inflection , was to get back to business .
I was in my last year of high school on September 11 , 2001 , when an airliner slammed into the Pentagon a few miles away .
Later that month , while visiting O ’ Hare International Airport , President George W. Bush implored the American people to “ do your business around the country .
Fly and enjoy America ’ s great destination spots .
Get down to Disney World in Florida.
” Don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Don ’ t learn Arabic or better understand the wider world .
Take a picture with Mickey Mouse , where Jeb Bush was governor .
To someone young and looking to find a calling and a purpose , such leadership was crushing .
It was an invitation to waste the best energy of youth .
In 2006 , as President Bush ’ s delusional wars in Afghanistan and Iraq raged on , he told us much the same thing : “ I encourage you all to go shopping more.
” Back to shopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ again .
I teach at the University of Colorado now , and my students are coming of age in another moment of inflection .
They are entering adulthood during a pandemic , an economic collapse , and a historic uprising for justice .
What calls to action have they received ?
This Is What Dystopia Looks Like More in this series The virus , their president told them , is no cause for change : “ It ’ s going to disappear .
One day—it ’ s like a miracle—it will disappear.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything would be back to normal by April .
Trump ’ s delusions exceed those of his predecessor .
But I don ’ t want to focus on presidents any more than they deserve , for they are not the only ones teaching the young .
I have had delusions of my own .
Until the very last minute , I thought I could still make it to long-planned engagements in Europe in late February .
I let myself believe the assurances that , somehow , our kids would be impervious to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can go back to business as usual .
Now my university is opening again , behind plastic shields and face masks .
Students are repopulating the dorms and roving around town in partially masked flocks .
Since we receive only an infinitesimal part of our budget from the state , we ’ re told , institutional survival requires business as usual .
I am refreshing an old syllabus .
Vast bureaucratic expertise has gone into establishing the fiction that such a thing is reasonable , that we can continue to provide the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying so much for .
Perhaps , if we taught a different lesson , we could .
Earlier in the summer , a group of my colleagues published an open letter arguing that the return to campus would be not only a medical danger but also poor pedagogy .
“ It is the responsibility of the leadership to tell them , ” these professors wrote , “ to put public health first , and not to make false promises about a meaningful on-campus experience , when health and lives are on the line.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ I was still waiting and seeing .
NYU anthropologist Angela Zito has diagnosed higher education ’ s failure of imagination especially pointedly : She reminds me of two lines from a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson .
At some old colleges , these lines are carved into monuments to students killed in the Great War ( and , surely , the concurrent influenza pandemic ) : As a student at Brown University , I walked by those words almost daily , hearing their call to sacrifice in grating opposition to what President Bush @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The words themselves invert Angela Zito ’ s lament : “ man ” rather than all of us together ; an adventure of death as opposed to the struggle for collective safety .
Yet Zito and Emerson are united in their embrace of a morality that embraces non-normal times , that invites the young to take history upon themselves and act in it—not merely for the sake of approximating their earlier expectations but in order to raise their expectations and live lives that mean something .
Can we teachers “ address our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institutional pretense ( and masks and screens ) of normal education delivery ?
As Zito says , we need to grieve .
Then we can get down to the non-normal work of reshaping our world out of this cataclysm .
I hope my students will hear the call to put their best selves into this moment .
It ’ s their time .
Those who most want to rush back to normal are probably those who most fear the opportunity for change that the young now have before them .
Scenes From a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Kopkind , a living memorial to radical journalist Andrew Kopkind , who from 1982–94 was the magazine ’ s chief political writer and analyst .
This series of dispatches from Kopkind ’ s far-flung network of participants , advisers , guests , and friends is edited by Nation contributor and Kopkind program director JoAnn Wypijewski , and appears weekly on thenation.com and kopkind.org .

B oulder, C olo.—The call to action my generation received, during our first moment of inflection, was to get back to business. I was in my last year of high school on September 11, 2001, when an airliner slammed into the Pentagon a few miles away. Later that month, while visiting O’Hare International Airport, President George W. Bush implored the American people to “do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America’s great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida.”
Don’t soul-search or undertake shared sacrifice. Don’t learn Arabic or better understand the wider world. Take a picture with Mickey Mouse, where Jeb Bush was governor. To someone young and looking to find a calling and a purpose, such leadership was crushing. It was an invitation to waste the best energy of youth.
In 2006, as President Bush’s delusional wars in Afghanistan and Iraq raged on, he told us much the same thing: “I encourage you all to go shopping more.”
Back to shopping, back to school—we are there once again.
I teach at the University of Colorado now, and my students are coming of age in another moment of inflection. They are entering adulthood during a pandemic, an economic collapse, and a historic uprising for justice. What calls to action have they received? Scenes From a Pandemic Untethered, or The Year of Living Virtually Patricia J. Williams The Art of the Meal Mary Lewis Maybe We Shouldn’t Go Back to Normal Bri M.
The virus, their president told them, is no cause for change: “It’s going to disappear. One day—it’s like a miracle—it will disappear.” That was in February. He said everything would be back to normal by April. Trump’s delusions exceed those of his predecessor. But I don’t want to focus on presidents any more than they deserve, for they are not the only ones teaching the young.
I have had delusions of my own. Until the very last minute, I thought I could still make it to long-planned engagements in Europe in late February. I let myself believe the assurances that, somehow, our kids would be impervious to the virus at school. I keep imagining I can go back to business as usual.
Now my university is opening again, behind plastic shields and face masks. Students are repopulating the dorms and roving around town in partially masked flocks. Since we receive only an infinitesimal part of our budget from the state, we’re told, institutional survival requires business as usual. I am refreshing an old syllabus. Vast bureaucratic expertise has gone into establishing the fiction that such a thing is reasonable, that we can continue to provide the experience that students and their families are paying so much for. Perhaps, if we taught a different lesson, we could.
Earlier in the summer, a group of my colleagues published an open letter arguing that the return to campus would be not only a medical danger but also poor pedagogy. “It is the responsibility of the leadership to tell them,” these professors wrote, “to put public health first, and not to make false promises about a meaningful on-campus experience, when health and lives are on the line.” I didn’t sign. I was still waiting and seeing. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection How the “Brooks Brothers Riot” Set the Stage for Insurrection Chris Lehmann
NYU anthropologist Angela Zito has diagnosed higher education’s failure of imagination especially pointedly:
Colleges missed the chance to directly address our students as moral beings rather than desiring consumers, and invite them to join us in a time of grieving perseverance in order to save ourselves together. Will never get over that. Intend to teach that way myself.
She reminds me of two lines from a poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson. At some old colleges, these lines are carved into monuments to students killed in the Great War (and, surely, the concurrent influenza pandemic):
’Tis man’s perdition to be safe,
When for the truth he ought to die.
As a student at Brown University, I walked by those words almost daily, hearing their call to sacrifice in grating opposition to what President Bush was asking of us at the time. The words themselves invert Angela Zito’s lament: “man” rather than all of us together; an adventure of death as opposed to the struggle for collective safety. Yet Zito and Emerson are united in their embrace of a morality that embraces non-normal times, that invites the young to take history upon themselves and act in it—not merely for the sake of approximating their earlier expectations but in order to raise their expectations and live lives that mean something.
Can we teachers “address our students as moral beings” behind the institutional pretense (and masks and screens) of normal education delivery? As Zito says, we need to grieve. Then we can get down to the non-normal work of reshaping our world out of this cataclysm.
I hope my students will hear the call to put their best selves into this moment. It’s their time. Those who most want to rush back to normal are probably those who most fear the opportunity for change that the young now have before them.
Scenes From a Pandemic is a collaboration between The Nation and Kopkind, a living memorial to radical journalist Andrew Kopkind, who from 1982–94 was the magazine’s chief political writer and analyst. This series of dispatches from Kopkind’s far-flung network of participants, advisers, guests, and friends is edited by Nation contributor and Kopkind program director JoAnn Wypijewski, and appears weekly on thenation.com and kopkind.org.


thenation--2020-09-10--Publishers Are Taking the Internet to Court

When Covid-19 struck , hundreds of millions of students were suddenly stranded at home without access to teachers or libraries .
UNESCO reported that in April , 90 percent of the world ’ s enrolled students had been adversely affected by the pandemic .
In response , the Internet Archive ’ s Open Library announced the National Emergency Library , a temporary program suspending limits on the number of patrons who could borrow its digital books simultaneously .
The Open Library lends at no charge about 4 million digital books , 2.5 million of which are in the public domain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be under copyright and subject to lending restrictions .
( This is roughly equivalent to a medium-sized city library ; the New York Public Library , by comparison , holds 21.9 million books and printed materials and 1.78 million e-books , according to 2016 figures from the American Library Association . )
But the National Emergency Library wound up creating an emergency of its own—for the future of libraries .
Brewster Kahle , the Internet Archive ’ s founder and digital librarian , wrote in March that the National Emergency Library would ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assigned readings and library materials…for the remainder of the US academic calendar.
” He acknowledged that authors and publishers would also be harmed by the pandemic , urged those in a position to buy books to do so , and offered authors a form for removing their own books from the program , if they chose .
More than 100 libraries , archives , and other institutions signed on to a statement of support for the program , including MIT , Penn State , Emory University , the Boston Public Library , Middlebury @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University , the Claremont Colleges Library , and the Greater Western Library Alliance .
Writing in The New Yorker , Harvard history professor and author Jill Lepore joined many media observers in praising the National Emergency Library as “ a gift to readers everywhere.
” A number of other authors , however , took to Twitter to complain .
Libraries Are a Space Where Everyone Belongs “ They scan books illegally and put them online .
It ’ s not a library , ” novelist Colson Whitehead tweeted in March .
( I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws he thought were being broken , or whether he ’ d since altered his views on this matter , and he declined to comment . )
On June 1 , Whitehead ’ s publisher , Penguin Random House , together with fellow megapublishers Hachette , HarperCollins , and Wiley , filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive alleging “ mass copyright infringement.
” The Internet Archive closed the National Emergency Library on June 16 , citing the lawsuit and calling for the publishers to stand down .
But the plaintiffs are continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now seeking to close the whole Open Library permanently .
The trial is set for next year in federal court , with initial disclosures for discovery scheduled to take place next week .
The publishers ’ “ prayer for relief ” seeks to destroy the Open Library ’ s existing books , and to soak the Internet Archive for a lot of money ; in their response , the Archive is looking to have its opponents ’ claims denied in full , its legal costs paid , and “ such other and further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ equitable.
” But what ’ s really at stake in this lawsuit is the idea of ownership itself—what it means not only for a library but for anyone to own a book .
The Internet Archive is far more than the Open Library ; it ’ s a nonprofit institution that has become a cornerstone of archival activity throughout the world .
Brewster Kahle is an Internet pioneer who was writing about the importance of preserving the digital commons in 1996 .
He built the Wayback Machine , without which an incalculable amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost for good .
The Internet Archive has performed pioneering work in developing public search tools for its own vast collections , such as the television news archive , which researchers and journalists like me use on an almost daily basis in order to contextualize and interpret political reporting .
These resources are unique and irreplaceable .
The Internet Archive is a tech partner to hundreds of libraries , including the Library of Congress , for whom it develops techniques for the stewardship of digital content .
It helps them build their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is currently used by more than 600 organizations including universities , museums , and government agencies , as well as libraries , to create their own searchable public archives .
The Internet Archive repairs broken links on Wikipedia—by the million .
It has collected thousands of early computer games , and developed online emulators so they can be played on modern computers .
It hosts collections of live music performances , 78s and cylinder recordings , radio shows , films and video .
I am leaving a lot out about its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accessible , its projects to expand books to the print-disabled—too many undertakings and achievements to count .
For-profit publishers like HarperCollins or Hachette don ’ t perform the kind of work required to preserve a cultural posterity .
Publishers are not archivists .
They obey the dictates of the market .
They keep books in print based on market considerations , not cultural ones .
Archiving is not in the purview or even the interests of big publishers , who indeed have an incentive to encourage the continuing need to buy .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for authors and artists to be compensated fairly is balanced against the need to preserve a rich and robust public commons for the benefit of the culture as a whole .
Publishers are stewards of the right of authors to make a fair living ; librarians are stewards of cultural posterity .
Brewster Kahle , and the Internet Archive , are librarians , and the Internet Archive is a new kind of library .
I first spoke with Kahle in 2013 , when he became one of just a handful of people in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receipt of a National Security Letter from the NSA .
Hundreds of thousands of these letters were sent out , but only the three that had been successfully challenged in court , and thus rescinded , could be discussed in public without risking imprisonment .
The NSA had demanded that the Internet Archive divulge personal information about a library patron , and the only way to refuse to comply ( without being jailed ) was to sue the government , so that ’ s what Kahle decided to do .
The Internet Archive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU .
“ I ’ m a librarian !
” he told me , back then .
“ Libraries have had a long history of dealing with authoritarian organizations demanding reader records—just , who ’ s read what—and this has led to people being rounded up and killed.
” Now Kahle finds himself on the other side of a lawsuit .
The key issue in this one is the as-yet-untested legal theory of Controlled Digital Lending ( CDL ) , which the Internet Archive and partner @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last few years , in order to deal fairly with the new question of lending digitized books within the parameters of existing copyright law .
CDL was designed to mirror the age-old library practice of ( 1 ) buying or otherwise acquiring a physical book , and ( 2 ) loaning it out to one patron at a time .
Like a traditional library , the Internet Archive buys or accepts donations of physical books .
The archive scans its physical books , making one digital copy available for each physical book it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loaned out for a limited period , like a traditional library loan .
The physical books from which the scans were made are stored and do not circulate , a practice known as “ own-to-loan.
” Harvard copyright scholar and lawyer Kyle Courtney has explained this reasoning very clearly .
“ Libraries do not need permission or a license to loan those books that they have purchased or acquired , ” he said at a recent conference .
“ Copyright law covers those exact issues.… Congress actually placed all of these specialized copyright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself.
” The for-profit publishers in the lawsuit , however , do not care for this idea .
What they allege in the complaint is this : “ Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers , IA [ the Internet Archive ] scans print books , uploads these illegally scanned books to its servers , and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites.
” What this ominous description fails to acknowledge is that all libraries that lend e-books “ distribute verbatim digital copies of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yet the publishers claim later in the same document that they have no beef with regular libraries .
They love libraries , they say ( “ Publishers have long supported public libraries , recognizing the significant benefits to the public of ready access to books and other publications ” ) , and are “ in partnership ” with them : “ This partnership turns upon a well-developed and longstanding library market , through which public libraries buy print books and license ebooks ( or agree to terms of sale for ebooks ) from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The words “ license ebooks ” are the most important ones in the whole lawsuit .
Publishers approve of libraries paying for e-book licenses because they ’ re temporary , just like your right to watch a movie on Netflix is temporary and can evaporate at any moment .
In the same way , publishers would like to see libraries obliged to license , not to own , books—that is , continue to pay for the same book again and again .
That ’ s what this lawsuit is really about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion that publishers took advantage of the pandemic to achieve what they had not been able to achieve previously : to turn the library system into a “ reading as a service ” operation from which they can squeeze profits forever .
Their argument also hinges on the notion that it ’ s illegal to scan a book that you own .
Note that this is what ’ s being claimed in the complaint : that the books are “ illegally scanned , ” as Whitehead tweeted back in March .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pirated ” copies they ’ re trying to prevent .
It ’ s doing as you wish with your own property .
This runs deeper than the question of digital format .
NYU law professor Jason Schultz , co-author of The End of Ownership , explained it in an e-mail : “ The key here is that our law and cultures have always distinguished between owning something and temporarily purchasing access to something .
Most people know the difference between owning a home and renting one , or owning a tuxedo or renting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most media , for example the difference between buying a copy of a film on DVD and going to see it in the theater.
” The Internet is 31 years old , and in those three short decades the virtual world we ’ ve come to depend on has slowly eroded the idea of private ownership—literally , your right to call your belongings your own .
Things you used to buy just once , such as your own private copies of software like Photoshop or Word , your privately owned vinyl discs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begun to come through dispensing services you pay for every month , from vendors like Adobe , Netflix , Hulu , and Spotify .
And you ’ ll never stop paying .
That rentier mentality is now reaching into the world of books .
As Schultz elaborated : “ For each physical book that a library owns , it can lend it out to whomever it chooses for as long as it wants and the copyright owner has no say in how such lending happens .
But here , because digital technology is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can control how/when/where/why libraries lend out digital copies.… In other words , they want to change the rules in their favor and take away one of the most cherished and valuable contributions that libraries make to society—allowing members of the public to read for free from the library ’ s collection.
” The oldest surviving library in England was founded in 1653 through the bequest of Humphrey Chetham , a Manchester textile merchant and banker , “ for the use of schollars and others well affected to learning , the books to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Chetham ’ s Library has been in continuous operation as a free public library for more than 350 years .
The first keeper was charged with opening “ from 8 till 11 in the morning , and from one till four in the afternoon , ” and “ to require nothing of any man that cometh into the library.
” We ’ ve come a long way since then—for good or ill—but the Internet isn ’ t as inherently democratic as Silicon Valley would like us to believe .
Technology at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly to prevent all kinds of unwanted consequences and threats to laws and long-held principles , like a boom town built with no zoning , ramshackle and rowdy , by people more intent on finding gold than on creating a worthwhile community in which to live .
It ’ s not easy getting anyone at the Internet Archive to discuss these matters in the middle of litigation , but I did manage to speak with Brewster Kahle for a few moments .
“ Libraries buy , preserve , and lend , ” he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the model forever .
[ Libraries ] actually supply about 20 percent of the revenue to the publishing industry .
But if they can not buy , preserve , and lend—if all they become is a redistributor , a Netflix for books—my God , we have a society that can get really out of control .
Because if a publisher maintains control over every reading event , who ’ s allowed to read it , when are they allowed to read it , if they ’ re allowed to read it , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular regions , from being able to see something , we are in George Orwell world .
“ What libraries do , is they buy , preserve , and lend .
What this lawsuit is about—they ’ re saying the libraries can not buy , they can not preserve , and they can not lend.
” Libraries have operated on those principles for thousands of years , collecting , preserving , and sharing knowledge not for profit but as a public good—requiring nothing .
For many centuries , young people of limited means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users of libraries .
Some of those young people grew up to write books themselves .
It would be a tragedy if the profit motive were to succeed at last in putting an end to that .

Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Get The Nation’s Weekly Newsletter Fridays. The best of the week. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here. Fridays. The best of the week.
Thank you for signing up for The Nation’s weekly newsletter.
Repro Nation A monthly newsletter on the global fight for reproductive freedom. Email By signing up, you confirm that you are over the age of 16 and agree to receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.
Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue
Subscribe to The Nation Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month! Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!
Support Progressive Journalism The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter. The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.
Sign up for our Wine Club today. Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?
When Covid-19 struck, hundreds of millions of students were suddenly stranded at home without access to teachers or libraries. UNESCO reported that in April, 90 percent of the world’s enrolled students had been adversely affected by the pandemic. In response, the Internet Archive’s Open Library announced the National Emergency Library, a temporary program suspending limits on the number of patrons who could borrow its digital books simultaneously. The Open Library lends at no charge about 4 million digital books, 2.5 million of which are in the public domain, and 1.4 million of which may be under copyright and subject to lending restrictions. (This is roughly equivalent to a medium-sized city library; the New York Public Library, by comparison, holds 21.9 million books and printed materials and 1.78 million e-books, according to 2016 figures from the American Library Association.) But the National Emergency Library wound up creating an emergency of its own—for the future of libraries.
Brewster Kahle, the Internet Archive’s founder and digital librarian, wrote in March that the National Emergency Library would ensure “that students will have access to assigned readings and library materials…for the remainder of the US academic calendar.” He acknowledged that authors and publishers would also be harmed by the pandemic, urged those in a position to buy books to do so, and offered authors a form for removing their own books from the program, if they chose.
More than 100 libraries, archives, and other institutions signed on to a statement of support for the program, including MIT, Penn State, Emory University, the Boston Public Library, Middlebury College, Amherst College, George Washington University, the Claremont Colleges Library, and the Greater Western Library Alliance. Writing in The New Yorker, Harvard history professor and author Jill Lepore joined many media observers in praising the National Emergency Library as “a gift to readers everywhere.”
A number of other authors, however, took to Twitter to complain. a public good Libraries Are a Space Where Everyone Belongs Sue Halpern
“Guys. Not helpful,” tweeted novelist Neil Gaiman.
“They scan books illegally and put them online. It’s not a library,” novelist Colson Whitehead tweeted in March. (I wrote last week to ask Whitehead what laws he thought were being broken, or whether he’d since altered his views on this matter, and he declined to comment.)
On June 1, Whitehead’s publisher, Penguin Random House, together with fellow megapublishers Hachette, HarperCollins, and Wiley, filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive alleging “mass copyright infringement.” The Internet Archive closed the National Emergency Library on June 16, citing the lawsuit and calling for the publishers to stand down. But the plaintiffs are continuing to press their claims, and are now seeking to close the whole Open Library permanently. Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin Israel’s Repression of Palestinians Paved the Way for Its New Antidemocratic Court Israel’s Repression of Palestinians Paved the Way for Its New Antidemocratic Court Juan Cole Popular "swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe → The Evisceration of a Public University The Evisceration of a Public University Lisa M. Corrigan The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks The Patronizing Moralism of David Brooks Chris Lehmann “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash “The Blind Side” Was Always Trash Dave Zirin Israel’s Repression of Palestinians Paved the Way for Its New Antidemocratic Court Israel’s Repression of Palestinians Paved the Way for Its New Antidemocratic Court Juan Cole Current Issue View our current issue
The trial is set for next year in federal court, with initial disclosures for discovery scheduled to take place next week. The publishers’ “prayer for relief” seeks to destroy the Open Library’s existing books, and to soak the Internet Archive for a lot of money; in their response, the Archive is looking to have its opponents’ claims denied in full, its legal costs paid, and “such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.” But what’s really at stake in this lawsuit is the idea of ownership itself—what it means not only for a library but for anyone to own a book.
The Internet Archive is far more than the Open Library; it’s a nonprofit institution that has become a cornerstone of archival activity throughout the world. Brewster Kahle is an Internet pioneer who was writing about the importance of preserving the digital commons in 1996. He built the Wayback Machine, without which an incalculable amount of the early Web would have been lost for good. The Internet Archive has performed pioneering work in developing public search tools for its own vast collections, such as the television news archive, which researchers and journalists like me use on an almost daily basis in order to contextualize and interpret political reporting. These resources are unique and irreplaceable.
The Internet Archive is a tech partner to hundreds of libraries, including the Library of Congress, for whom it develops techniques for the stewardship of digital content. It helps them build their own Web-based collections with tools such as Archive-It, which is currently used by more than 600 organizations including universities, museums, and government agencies, as well as libraries, to create their own searchable public archives. The Internet Archive repairs broken links on Wikipedia—by the million. It has collected thousands of early computer games, and developed online emulators so they can be played on modern computers. It hosts collections of live music performances, 78s and cylinder recordings, radio shows, films and video. I am leaving a lot out about its groundbreaking work in making scholarly materials more accessible, its projects to expand books to the print-disabled—too many undertakings and achievements to count.
For-profit publishers like HarperCollins or Hachette don’t perform the kind of work required to preserve a cultural posterity. Publishers are not archivists. They obey the dictates of the market. They keep books in print based on market considerations, not cultural ones. Archiving is not in the purview or even the interests of big publishers, who indeed have an incentive to encourage the continuing need to buy.
But in a healthy society, the need for authors and artists to be compensated fairly is balanced against the need to preserve a rich and robust public commons for the benefit of the culture as a whole. Publishers are stewards of the right of authors to make a fair living; librarians are stewards of cultural posterity. Brewster Kahle, and the Internet Archive, are librarians, and the Internet Archive is a new kind of library.
I first spoke with Kahle in 2013, when he became one of just a handful of people in the United States permitted to discuss his receipt of a National Security Letter from the NSA. Hundreds of thousands of these letters were sent out, but only the three that had been successfully challenged in court, and thus rescinded, could be discussed in public without risking imprisonment. The NSA had demanded that the Internet Archive divulge personal information about a library patron, and the only way to refuse to comply (without being jailed) was to sue the government, so that’s what Kahle decided to do. The Internet Archive won that lawsuit, with the help of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU.
“I’m a librarian!” he told me, back then. “Libraries have had a long history of dealing with authoritarian organizations demanding reader records—just, who’s read what—and this has led to people being rounded up and killed.”
Now Kahle finds himself on the other side of a lawsuit. The key issue in this one is the as-yet-untested legal theory of Controlled Digital Lending (CDL), which the Internet Archive and partner libraries have been working out over the last few years, in order to deal fairly with the new question of lending digitized books within the parameters of existing copyright law. CDL was designed to mirror the age-old library practice of (1) buying or otherwise acquiring a physical book, and (2) loaning it out to one patron at a time.
Like a traditional library, the Internet Archive buys or accepts donations of physical books. The archive scans its physical books, making one digital copy available for each physical book it owns. The digitized copies are then loaned out for a limited period, like a traditional library loan. The physical books from which the scans were made are stored and do not circulate, a practice known as “own-to-loan.”
Harvard copyright scholar and lawyer Kyle Courtney has explained this reasoning very clearly. “Libraries do not need permission or a license to loan those books that they have purchased or acquired,” he said at a recent conference. “Copyright law covers those exact issues.… Congress actually placed all of these specialized copyright exemptions for libraries in the Copyright Act itself.”
The for-profit publishers in the lawsuit, however, do not care for this idea. What they allege in the complaint is this: “Without any license or any payment to authors or publishers, IA [the Internet Archive] scans print books, uploads these illegally scanned books to its servers, and distributes verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites.”
What this ominous description fails to acknowledge is that all libraries that lend e-books “distribute verbatim digital copies of the books in whole via public-facing websites.” Yet the publishers claim later in the same document that they have no beef with regular libraries. They love libraries, they say (“Publishers have long supported public libraries, recognizing the significant benefits to the public of ready access to books and other publications”), and are “in partnership” with them: “This partnership turns upon a well-developed and longstanding library market, through which public libraries buy print books and license ebooks (or agree to terms of sale for ebooks) from publishers.”
The real issue emerges here: The words “license ebooks” are the most important ones in the whole lawsuit.
Publishers approve of libraries paying for e-book licenses because they’re temporary, just like your right to watch a movie on Netflix is temporary and can evaporate at any moment. In the same way, publishers would like to see libraries obliged to license, not to own, books—that is, continue to pay for the same book again and again. That’s what this lawsuit is really about. It’s impossible to avoid the conclusion that publishers took advantage of the pandemic to achieve what they had not been able to achieve previously: to turn the library system into a “reading as a service” operation from which they can squeeze profits forever.
Their argument also hinges on the notion that it’s illegal to scan a book that you own. Note that this is what’s being claimed in the complaint: that the books are “illegally scanned,” as Whitehead tweeted back in March. It’s not just the distribution of “pirated” copies they’re trying to prevent. It’s doing as you wish with your own property.
This runs deeper than the question of digital format. NYU law professor Jason Schultz, co-author of The End of Ownership, explained it in an e-mail: “The key here is that our law and cultures have always distinguished between owning something and temporarily purchasing access to something. Most people know the difference between owning a home and renting one, or owning a tuxedo or renting one. We also know this with most media, for example the difference between buying a copy of a film on DVD and going to see it in the theater.”
The Internet is 31 years old, and in those three short decades the virtual world we’ve come to depend on has slowly eroded the idea of private ownership—literally, your right to call your belongings your own. Things you used to buy just once, such as your own private copies of software like Photoshop or Word, your privately owned vinyl discs and CDs, or movies on VHS—have increasingly begun to come through dispensing services you pay for every month, from vendors like Adobe, Netflix, Hulu, and Spotify. And you’ll never stop paying.
That rentier mentality is now reaching into the world of books. As Schultz elaborated: “For each physical book that a library owns, it can lend it out to whomever it chooses for as long as it wants and the copyright owner has no say in how such lending happens. But here, because digital technology is involved, the publishers are asserting that they can control how/when/where/why libraries lend out digital copies.… In other words, they want to change the rules in their favor and take away one of the most cherished and valuable contributions that libraries make to society—allowing members of the public to read for free from the library’s collection.”
The oldest surviving library in England was founded in 1653 through the bequest of Humphrey Chetham, a Manchester textile merchant and banker, “for the use of schollars and others well affected to learning, the books to remain as a public library for ever.” Chetham’s Library has been in continuous operation as a free public library for more than 350 years. The first keeper was charged with opening “from 8 till 11 in the morning, and from one till four in the afternoon,” and “to require nothing of any man that cometh into the library.”
We’ve come a long way since then—for good or ill—but the Internet isn’t as inherently democratic as Silicon Valley would like us to believe. Technology at the end of the 20th century advanced too quickly to prevent all kinds of unwanted consequences and threats to laws and long-held principles, like a boom town built with no zoning, ramshackle and rowdy, by people more intent on finding gold than on creating a worthwhile community in which to live.
It’s not easy getting anyone at the Internet Archive to discuss these matters in the middle of litigation, but I did manage to speak with Brewster Kahle for a few moments.
“Libraries buy, preserve, and lend,” he said. “That’s been the model forever. [Libraries] actually supply about 20 percent of the revenue to the publishing industry. But if they cannot buy, preserve, and lend—if all they become is a redistributor, a Netflix for books—my God, we have a society that can get really out of control. Because if a publisher maintains control over every reading event, who’s allowed to read it, when are they allowed to read it, if they’re allowed to read it, and be able to prevent anybody, or particular regions, from being able to see something, we are in George Orwell world.
“What libraries do, is they buy, preserve, and lend. What this lawsuit is about—they’re saying the libraries cannot buy, they cannot preserve, and they cannot lend.”
Libraries have operated on those principles for thousands of years, collecting, preserving, and sharing knowledge not for profit but as a public good—requiring nothing. For many centuries, young people of limited means have been the explicitly intended beneficiaries and users of libraries. Some of those young people grew up to write books themselves. It would be a tragedy if the profit motive were to succeed at last in putting an end to that.