New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

On going to Churches, Schools and Bars

UPDATE 12/6: For more on the mess in Rhode Island, see here.

This week’s SCOTUS opinion overturning New York’s restrictions on religious gatherings is disappointing in many ways. Most obviously, it hamstrings the ability of governors to respond with science to Covid and is part of a conservative backlash to that effort; Justice Breyer makes some of the important points in dissent, followed by more of them in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent. More ominously, it signals the accelerating arrival of the era of having to pander to right wing religious people who think that their religious freedom outweighs the harm principle (see, Thanksgiving is not just about spreading disease. It’s about imposing religion!). This has been coming for a while – recall the Court’s endorsement of Hobby Lobby’s theory that it’s ok to freeload on public services and goods, but that it does not have to extend contraception rights to citizen-employees. But Amy Coney Barrett makes it faster. That is, part of the acceleration is that the Court is illegitimate, by Mitch McConnell’s own standard: the rule is either that you seat a justice before an election or not. Those can’t both be true, except in a shameless right-wing power grab. We’ll get back to Moscow Mitch in a minute.

Also unfortunate here is Governor Cuomo, who seems to have gone out of his way to antagonize the Hassidic community in particular. The order in question also apparently did not index capacity to the size of the building or social distancing plans. The antagonism plus the restrictions lets the Court make disingenuous comparisons between the number of people in a grocery store and a church. It also gives people like Gorsuch the opportunity to say “the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids” (2). No one should view this as anything other than opportunism; after all, Gorsuch signed onto the Court’s opinion ignoring Trump’s many, many anti-Muslim tweets on the way to upholding his Muslim travel ban.  Politicians’ chatter is only part of the law when you don’t like the politician, it seems.

These are important, but what I haven’t seen discussed is that this opinion intersects with the other news percolating up around Thanksgiving, which is the absolute incoherence of public health restrictions. Folks like Ellie Murray and Julia Marcus have been trying to sound the alarm on Twitter, and Amanda Mull wrote about it in the Atlantic. The public health message is basically: “Thanksgiving is dangerous! It is dangerous to sit around a table with people from outside your household for a long meal! If you want to do that safely, go to Cheesecake Factory!” Ummm… in other words, it is bonkers incoherent that in most of the country, indoor dining at restaurants is still possible when pretty much anything else is closed. Indoor dining is on the same epidemiological list as church for likely spread!

In this particular context, is it any surprise that a group of people who are predisposed to prioritize religious rights noticed something amiss? This is from the per curiam:

“In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, camp grounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities.” (2)

The invitation for activist judges to ignore science is too much for them to pass up. Here is Kavanaugh: “in a red zone, for example, a church or synagogue must adhere to a 10-person attendance cap, while a grocery store, pet store, or big-box store down the street does not face the same restriction.” (2). Gorsuch piles on: “Nor is the problem an isolated one. In recent months, certain other Governors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples” (3). And he concludes: “It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates color-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.” (7).  Kavanaugh again: “once a State creates a favored class of businesses, as New York has done in this case, the State must justify why houses of worship are excluded from that favored class” (3).

Nevermind that you do different things in all of those facilities; as Justice Sotomayor acidly notes, “bike repair shops and liquor stores generally do not feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more at a time” (3). She adds:

“Justices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Ameri-cans each week, spreads most easily” (3).

So the conservatives are simply wrong on the facts, even though those facts are articulated quite clearly in the decision they overturn.  And that decision will probably cost people their lives.  Freedom!

But: bars and restaurants? Perhaps I am particularly sensitive to this point because schools are closed too (as one meme wondered – should NYC parents send their kids to the bars that are still open, now that schools are closed?), but it’s impossible not to notice that moneymaking endeavors get a different set of rules from civic ones. As Mull puts it:

“With people out of work and small businesses set up to fail en masse, America has landed on its current contradiction: Tell people it’s safe to return to bars and restaurants and spend money inside while following some often useless restrictions, but also tell them it’s unsafe to gather in their home, where nothing is for sale. It’s a woefully inadequate stimulus plan, funded by money extracted little by little from the pockets of people who are mostly just confused about what they’re being compelled to do.”

She cites the example of Rhode Island, whose restrictions are completely absurd:

“Residents are prohibited from gathering with even one person outside their household, even in the open air of a public park. But inside a restaurant? Well, 25 people is fine. Hire a caterer? You’re legally cleared to have up to 75 outdoors. The governor’s executive order merely notes: “The lower attendance at such events, the lower the risk.” (The Rhode Island governor’s office did not respond to a request for comment.).”

And how did we get here? Well, as Mull underlines, closing bars and restaurants (etc) will cause a lot of unemployment. Closing schools and churches won’t.

In other words, it’s not that the plaintiffs in the New York case necessarily raised a compelling First Amendment argument, but they are a canary in the coal mine for a deeply problematic public health policy, one that systematically favors commercial activities over civic ones.  Governors’ hands are tied, even the ones who want to do the right thing, because the proper public health measures will cost money in the form of income guarantees to the people affected by them. And guess who has – perhaps singlehandedly – stood most in the way of that financial assistance? That’s right – Moscow Mitch and his repeated bad-faith refusals to negotiate a second stimulus package. Turns out he was so busy ramming right-wing court justices through the Senate that he made it more dangerous to do stuff that is more important, like school, worship and family Thanksgiving.

ToS and the Subject Position of Website Users

By Gordon Hull

As one knows, online privacy policies (and access to the Internet in general) are generally conditioned on a user’s acceptance of some sort of boilerplate terms of service.  Lots of people (myself included) have complained about this state of affairs as attempting to get users to consent to all sorts of practices by way of reams of unintelligible legalese.  In addition to allowing unlimited data collections, these contracts often include mandatory arbitration provisions, which means that they compel users to take disputes with the sites to arbitrators selected by the company, rather than taking them to courts.

In other words, the idea is that using the product or service constitutes consent to a series of wildly one-sided terms that the user probably could not understand if she tried.  There is certainly no chance of negotiation or bargaining involved.  As Julie Cohen put it, “the conception of consent emerging from that default condition is unprecedented in the law of contracts or any other body of law,” and more closely resembles older status contracts than the contracts of modern liberalism (58-9).  The result is “a form of Kabuki theater that distracts both users and regulators from what is really going on” (59).

In a recent paper, Woodrow Hartzog and Neil Richards detail this state of affairs in terms of contract theory and its imaginary of two autonomous individuals negotiating and agreeing to terms.  They argue that:

“Consent is most valid when we are asked to choose infrequently, when the potential harms that result from the consent are easy to imagine, and when we have the correct incentives to consent consciously and seriously. The further we fall from this gold standard, the more a particular consent is pathological and thus suspect” (1465).

The design of notice-and-consent privacy regimes is deeply pathological from this point of view.  Consent is often unwitting – consumers don’t understand either the terms or the technology behind them.  They also don’t understand the consequences and risks (which is entirely expected, given that they are futural and difficult to visualize).   If not fully coerced, consent can be induced by both the fact that it is difficult now not to use the internet (so no opt-out) and both ISPs and networks are de facto monopolies (so no market competition).  Various website design techniques make opting out difficult: pop-ups that cover up the screen, browser tabs with no ‘back’ button, and various techniques of shaming (“Yes! I want this product.  No, I choose to die a lonely death”).  And of course there is the question of children: COPPA only protects children up to age 13, even though contractual consent typically starts at age 18.  And kids can easily get around age checks anyway.

If we step back from the normative arguments about why this situation is abusive or otherwise bad, I think there’s an interesting point to be made about subjectivity here.  Basically, the sites are trying to construct a legally cognizable subject position that users then occupy.  Both steps are important.  The contractual language presented in the ToS defines the subject position, and it seems to me that it’s important to distinguish this subject position from a few alternatives. First, this is not the traditional subject of law.  That position is foreclosed by the lack of availability of the courts.  Disputes are to be settled by a privatized procedure.  Second, it’s not the subject of administrative procedure either, such as recently upheld by SCOTUS in patent arbitration.  That procedure also allows an appeal to courts.  Third, it’s not the position of the disciplinary (?) subject that consumes mass media: there is no pretext to contract when you open a book, as Hartzog notes in an earlier paper on these contracts.  In short, I think this is a quite specific subject position constructed by the technology companies for their own advantage.

There is also a split between the structural subject position and the phenomenological experience of users.  Users are encouraged by the sites in question to view themselves as free and emancipated by the technology, and as empowered by its affordances.  They are (for obvious reasons) not encouraged to view themselves as signing away their rights.

The gap between user experience and described subject position leads to the second question: whether users can be said to occupy this subject position, i.e., whether these contracts are enforceable.  Can technology companies rely on the coercive power of the state to define the subjectivity of users on their terms?

It is the position of the technology companies that use of their products constitutes acceptance of the terms of service; sometimes this requires clicking a button.  Courts have been generally unwilling to say that the contracts are objectively unenforceable as unconscionable or otherwise inconsentable (though Hartzog and Evan Selinger more recently make the case that facial recognition ought to be the sort of thing that someone cannot consent to – the harms are potentially too great and difficult to understand).  This means that the question legally has come down to whether the notice and consent procedures are adequate.  Hartzog’s earlier paper suggested that, as of roughly 2010, courts had been most likely to refuse to enforce ToS on casual users – those who just read a website but do not otherwise particularly interact with it.  Still, the law was inconsistent and this emerging de facto carve-out was far from either settled or explicit.

Here, a recent survey of the case law by Nancy Kim is encouraging.  She reports that the case law is still very inconsistent, and users often lose.  But: there’s a movement toward demanding more of websites:

“The standards of “notice” and “manifestation of assent” remain the same, but how those standards are applied varies depending upon the facts of the case and the jurisdiction. Berkson v. Gogo LLC and Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. have been particularly influential in helping inform the application of the standards. Reflecting the influence of these two cases, courts have started to assess the reasonableness of notice by evaluating the website experience from the perspective of the offeree and by considering how the drafter chose to present terms. Thus, instead of asking why the offeree failed to read visible terms, more and more courts are asking why the offeror failed to draft terms in a more conspicuous manner. As the court in Rushing v. Viacom Inc. emphasized, the burden is on website owners to “put users on notice of the terms to which they wish to bind consumers.” Accordingly, courts are increasingly asking for two types of evidence from drafters. The first is in the form of screenshots or webflows that demonstrate how the terms were presented to plaintiffs. The second is in the form of the drafter’s internal records that document that the plaintiff actually accessed the website at the time the notice was allegedly presented.” (1693)

There’s a lot to be done here, of course, but it’s nice to see some legal pushback, and to see how courts understand evidence and other traditional legal concepts in this context.  Kim cites several cases where courts determined that reasonably prudent users would not realize that they were entering into a contractual relation – for example, there was a hyperlinked “terms of service” but it was buried several pages into a website and well below the prominent “click here for the next step of your purchase.”  Nearly all of the cases Kim cites are about the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses, which suggests both the specificity of the subject position the websites are constructing, and the extent to which its enforceability is an artifact of their power over not just users but the state.

Encouraging case on Qualified Immunity

Given the role of qualified immunity in absolving police officers of murdering unarmed black men (and doing all sorts of other nefarious things), it’s encouraging to see that the Supreme Court said in a per curiam opinion today that there is an outer limit to how far that doctrine can be extended.  Recall the problem: courts will rule that yes, some behavior or another would be unconstitutional, but the law on the subject is not “clearly established,” so the officer is shielded from liability.  The trick is that “clearly established” morphs into “an officer in an identical situation has already been found liable for doing exactly what is alleged here.”  Then of course liability becomes almost impossible to establish.

Consider now the case of Trent Taylor:

“Petitioner Trent Taylor is an inmate in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Taylor alleges that, for six full days in September 2013, correctional officers confined him in a pair of shockingly unsanitary cells. The first cell was covered, nearly floor to ceiling, in “massive amounts’ of feces”: all over the floor, the ceiling, the window, the walls, and even “packed inside the water faucet.” Fearing that his food and water would be contaminated, Taylor did not eat or drink for nearly four days. Correctional officers then moved Taylor to a second, frigidly cold cell, which was equipped with only a clogged drain in the floor to dispose of bodily wastes. Taylor held his bladder for over 24 hours, but he eventually (and involuntarily) relieved himself, causing the drain to overflow and raw sewage to spill across the floor. Because the cell lacked a bunk, and because Taylor was confined without clothing, he was left to sleep naked in sewage”

Like clockwork, the extra-conservative 5^th Circuit concluded that the treatment was unconstitutional, but that there was no liability (I’m quoting SCOTUS) because “based on its [the 5^th Circuit’s] assessment that “[t]he law wasn’t clearly established” that “prisoners couldn’t be housed in  cells teeming with human waste” “for only six days,” the court concluded that the prison officials responsible for Taylor’s confinement did not have “ ‘fair warning’ that their specific acts were unconstitutional.” SCOTUS points out the obvious: “no reasonable correctional officer could have concluded that, under the extreme circumstances of this case, it was constitutionally permissible to house Taylor in such deplorably unsanitary conditions for such an extended period of time.”  They add: “Confronted with the particularly egregious facts of this case, any reasonable officer should have realized that Taylor’s conditions of confinement offended the Constitution.”  So back to litigation – no summary judgment in favor of the officers.

We still have a long way to go before qualified immunity is reined in adequately, but this shows there is at least a floor.  In the meantime, Justice Alito writes a concurrence in which he first says that the SCOTUS shouldn’t have reviewed the case, but given that it has, he concurs in the judgment.  Oh, and Justice Thomas dissented.  But you could have guessed that.  More importantly, at least seven justices realized that there could be limits to qualified immunity.  These days, it’s important to recognize even small first steps.