Equality Newsletter #4 (March 22, 2021)
Another newspaper apologizes for past racist coverage; precedent-setting antitrust lawsuit against Facebook; LGBTQ lawsuit in Singapore, and more
RACE
Another newspaper apologizes for years of racist reporting
The Kansas City Star has become the latest daily newspaper to apologize to its readers for years of “racist” reporting. In a front-page editorial, the newspaper said a detailed examination of its past coverage and that of its sister newspaper, the Kansas City Times, revealed that their reporting had often stigmatized Black residents as violent criminals or poor welfare recipients living in crime-plagued ghettos while downplaying problems of social inequality and segregation in the city and its public schools.
“It is well past time for an apology, acknowledging, as we do so, that the sins of our past still reverberate today,” Mike Fannin, the Star’s president and editor, said in the editorial.
Fannin assigned a large team of Star reporters to review the paper's coverage of African-Americans dating to the paper's founding at the turn of the 19th century. What they found shocked and appalled them. The paper barely acknowledged any positive developments occurring inside Kansas City's Black community, which fed a "toxic narrative" that reinforced segregation.
Even the illustrious career of jazz icon Charlie "Bird" Parker, a prominent Kansas City naive and resident was completely ignored -- until he died, that is. In its obituary the Star misreported Parker’s age and misspelled his name, but never bothered to issue a correction, Fannin noted.
Fannin said it was the horrific death of Geroge Floyd in police custody in Minneapolis that inspired the paper's internal investigation. He also notes disturbing parallels between the Floyd incident and the unexplained deaths of several Black men shot by police during the riots in downtown Kansas City that followed the assassination of Martin Luther King, Kr.
"A mayor’s commission determined that most [of the men] were innocent victims yet there was no follow-up newspaper probe as there would be today, no independent investigation, no calls for the officers to be charged, or for the police chief to resign," the paper's internal review noted.
In recent weeks, other major newspapers including The Los Angeles Times have publicly apologized for their past racist coverage. In 2018, the Montgomery, Alabama Advertiser apologized for its “shameful” coverage of lynching over several decades. In addition, National Geographic magazine apologized for having used racial stereotypes in its photo essays dealing with “native” peoples abroad.
Fannin said that the Star's coverage had “disenfranchised, ignored and scorned generations” of Black residents and for decades “robbed an entire community of opportunity, dignity, justice and recognition.” The paper’s coverage "not only did a disservice to Black Kansas City residents, but also to white readers deprived of the opportunity to understand the true richness Black citizens brought to Kansas City."
Looking ahead, Fannin said the paper would endeavor to make up for its past failings. “We are grateful for how far we’ve come. We are humbled by how far we still have to go,” he said.
GENDER
Another gang rape in India leads to nationwide protests
The gang rape and murder of a 19-year old lower-caste Dalit woman in India has sparked nationwide protests against the central government's inability to contain the continuing epidemic of sexual violence in the world’s second most populous nation.
The murdered woman was tending to her family's fields in the province of Uttar Pradesh when she was set upon by four young men of a higher caste background. The four men beat and raped her so badly her spine was broken and she lapsed into a coma. Members of her family took her to a local hospital where she died two weeks later.
Some observers consider the latest assault the worst since the infamous 2012 bus rape of of 28-year old student that sparked international outrage and forced Inidia to pass stiff anti-rape laws that nevertheless remain poorly enforced. On average, 98 women are raped daily across India but the accused often escape punishment because police and prosecutors refuse to pursue the cases with diligence.
India is under growing pressure to address its rape crisis but it remains to be seen if justice will be served in the Uttar Pradesh case. While five senior police officers have been forced to resign for allegedly mishandling the investigation, the province's senior government ministers have accused the woman's family of lying and exaggerating the circumstances of the crime.
In addition, the police have recently been accused of cremating the dead woman's body against the wishes of the family, and in violation of its religious customs, probably in an attempt to prevent a conclusive forensic investigation of her injuries
Indian women's rights activists say police indifference and hostility are only a symptom of the country's deep-seated patriarchal culture which continues to treat women, especially of the lower classes, as second class citizens unworthy of the same rights and protections as other sectors.
In the short term, activists want to see legal loopholes closed and a more aggressive push by police to investigate sex crimes. Some activists are even pushing for the death penalty for those convicted of rape, an extreme leasure recently passed into law in neighboring Bangladesh.
However, most activists say that relying on the death penalty won't actually deter sex crimes against women. “[The] death penalty is not a deterrent for any crime,” says Vrinda Grover, a lawyer from India who recently attended a major Southeast Asian legal conference sponsored by Human Rights Watch.
“It lets the state off the hook from doing the work that the state needs to do in order to ensure that women and girls live free lives in this country.”
LGBTQ
Singapore LGBTQ activist leads crusade against colonial-era “indecency” law.
Singapore is one of some 40 former British colonies that still have archaic anti-gay sex laws on the books. Gay men in Singapore can be jailed for up to two years simply for having sex, even in private. Although prosecutions under the law, known as section 377, are rare (just 9 between 2005 and 2013), it’s a dangerous legal loophole. Understandably, many LGBTQ activists want to see it closed.
Last month, one of those activists, Tan Seng Kee, widely known as “Roy Tan,” brought his decade-long battle against 377 to the steps of Singapore’s Supreme Court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional. In the past, other plaintiffs have made the same argument and failed, but Tan hopes to get a fresh hearing. One reason? Neighboring India, like Singapore, once a former British colony, overturned its own 377-type law in 2018 and other Southeast Asian nations are considering following suit.
Still, Tan faces an uphill battle. For one thing, Singapore remains deeply homophobic, with LGBTQ people still openly ostracized. Another problem is the Singapore Constitution. Its language on rights and rights protection is vague and ambiguous, making it hard for plaintiffs to build a compelling legal case.
Not that Tan and several others haven’t tried. But in 2014, the nation’s 3-member Court of Appeals rejected Tan’s claims out of hand, saying discrimination based on sexual orientation was not found in the nation's Constitution -- only discrimination based on race and gender. The Court also ruled that acts of "gross indecency” -- as well as sex in general -- could not be construed as a form of free speech and expression.
The nation’s High Court has also previously ruled, arguing last March that the Constitution's equal protection language applied only to the imposition of unequal criminal penalties, including incarceration, and not whether homosexuals could be denied the same sexual freedoms as heterosexuals.
In his latest brief, Tan suggests that the High Court needs to revisit its earlier decision. Rather than seeing all individuals as equally free to pursue sex as they see fit, the Courts are treating widely practiced sex acts as a class of behaviors and acts unique to LGBTQ individuals. That means gays are being judged for their acts under a separate set of sex laws, which by its nature, constitutes unlawful discrimination.
Tan says it's obvious that the Courts are engaged in crass hypocrisy because supposed homosexual acts such as sodomy are widely practiced by heterosexuals but only LGBTQ individuals are subject to "gross indecency" laws.
But that hypocrisy is not obvious to many Singaporeans. While some of the nation’s leading jurists have come to Tan’s defense, Singapore’s Worker Party, a powerful force in civil society, has refused to take a stand, saying its membership is still too divided on the issue. And opinion polls find that well over half of Singapore’s population -- though somewhat less among youth -- opposes equal rights for gays.
Singapore is hardly alone in Southeast Asia. Brunei, Malaysia and Myanmar (formerly Burma) all have colonial-era “indecency” laws still on their books. In Brunei and Myanmar violators can be fined and imprisoned for up to 20 years. In Malaysia they can be whipped and sentenced to up to ten years.
Tan remains hopeful that he can prevail this time. At age 62, he’s one of the elders of Singapore’s LGBTQ movement. He’s best known for founding the annual Pink Dot festival which celebrates sexual diversity and gay rights. This year’s event, in the midst of COVID-19, was the largest ever. Attitudes are changing, he insists, and 377’s days are numbered.
WEALTH
News Analysis: Facebook Antitrust Lawsuit Could Set a Huge Precedent
Forty-eight of the nation's 50 state attorneys general just filed suit against Facebook charging that the tech giant's acquisition of Instagram and What's App violates federal antitrust laws. It's the largest antitrust action since the federal lawsuit in the 1980s that resulted in the breakup of AT&T's telecommunications monopoly, and it has huge implications for social media consumers.
Facebook's acquisition of Instagram in 2012 and What's App in 2014 is not in itself a violation of antitrust law, experts say. The law sets no limit on how large companies can grow. It also allows large firms to buy up smaller companies to dominate the market as long as consumers benefit through lower prices, new product development or technology innovation.
In congressional testimony last summer, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg insisted that Instagram was a small fledgling company known only as a cell phone app at the time Facebook acquired it. It has since mushroomed in size and scope and offers a wider array of services to consumers. Facebook takes credit for this development.
But experts say that Facebook is vulnerable to charges that it acquired Instagram and What's App primarily to deter competition and to develop monopoly control over the market, not to better serve consumers. Investigators have unearthed 2012 emails between Zuckerberg and his CFO in which he admits to fears that Instagram and What's App would develop into social networking sites that could pose a growing threat to Facebook. Some experts say these emails amount to "smoking guns."
But underlying the current legal challenge to Facebook, some analysts say, are growing concerns over a wide range of company activities. In 2017, Facebook and Google spent millions opposing a bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Claire McKaskill to compel social media sites to crack down on sex trafficking. Zuckerberg argued that the bill would violate free speech and wrongly made Facebook responsible for the criminal actions of others. During Obama’s second term, Facebook also lobbied for special antitrust exemptions for IT companies that allowed them to yield megaprofits, far outpacing other Fortune 500 firms.
These activities awakened politicians in both parties to Facebook’s growing legislative power and influence -- and set off alarms bells.
At the state level, Zuckerberg has faced major challenges from citizens concerned over Facebook's possible misuse of biometric data. While Facebook tells its users it has no plans to exploit their personal information, it already sells consumer data to advertisers for profit. Privacy experts are deeply concerned that Facebook's expanding database of user photos could be used for nefarious face recognition purposes.
There's also growing concern over Zuckerberg's influence over the electoral process. Nearly two-thirds of Americans now rely on their Facebook feed for news and information and both political parties increasingly look to Facebook to place campaign ads and sway voter opinion. And Facebook, like Twitter, is increasingly imposing its own standards and restrictions on "acceptable" news and opinions, raising concerns over restrictions on free speech.
The state attorneys general are not alone in moving to stop Facebook. In a separate lawsuit, the Federal Trade Commission is seeking to prohibit Facebook from imposing anticompetitive conditions on software developers and also wants to require Facebook to seek prior notice and approval for all future mergers and acquisitions.
The upshot? The lawsuits against Facebook are less a narrow legal action than a broader shot across the bow of a company with unprecedented influence and control over the flow of information in commerce, politics and the media. The two antitrust cases will likely drag on for years, just as the AT&T case did. But because the case ultimately comes down to perception of intent, Facebook may ultimately find itself forced to compromise on a wide range of issues to restore its reputation and to assuage the fears of its critics.
If nothing else, the lawsuits will likely slow the pace of Facebook's expansion, allowing the political and legal world to catch up to the rapid pace of IT development which always seems to be one or two steps ahead of regulators, at the expense of the public at large
DID YOU KNOW
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts and attempt to stop monopolistic business practices.
In fact, the vague wording of the Act allowed industrial monopolies to block its enforcement for a decade. In practice, regulators sympathetic to industry used the Act to go after labor unions, defining them as a form of "monopoly" in the labor market. In 1896, the Act appeared to be effectively neutered when the American Sugar Company, which controlled 98% of all sugar production survived a lawsuit by claiming that the act only applied to trade, not manufacturing.
However, the spirit of the Act didn't die. Beginning with President Theodore Roosevelt, the Act was applied successfully against American railroad monopolies. In 1904, the US Supreme Court also clarified that the mere existence or size of a trust was not illegal. It was the trust’s use of certain market tactics to attain or preserve its monopoly at the expense of consumers that was illegal.
For example, in 1911,the High Court found that Standard Oil Company of New Jersey violated the Act not because it was so large; rather, it had eliminated competition by either buying them out and by driving them out of business by temporarily slashing prices in a given region. The Court ordered AT&T to break up its telecommunications monopoly in the 1980s for much the same reason.
For more on the Act and its complex political history, see the 2008 book, The Robber Barons and the Sherman Antitrust Act: Reshaping American Business by Tim McNeese.