First, some housekeeping: For the next two weeks, I will post on Thursday evenings instead of Saturday because of the holidays and my travel plans.
“Free Speech Absolutism”
Elon Musk abolished Twitter’s moderation policies and allowed “America’s most prominent Nazi,” Andrew Anglin back onto Twitter along with Donald Trump. He declared himself a “free speech absolutist” and said all voices should be heard.
Then, on Thursday, he went on a binge and suspended the Twitter accounts of a number of well-known journalists. He offered a flimsy pretext, claiming that the journalists had told people his family’s location. It was a lie. In fact, they were criticizing him and he didn’t like it.
Because Musk claims to be a free speech absolutist and has been criticizing the previous owners of Twitter for banning people and content, people pointed out his hypocrisy—but what he did was worse than that.
Max Fisher, an international reporter and columnist for The New York Times, said this about Musk and friends:
“The idea of rejecting institutions to build a purer society on the internet, in vogue in tech in the 90s, by the 2010s had become a mandate to abolish and remake those institutions in big tech’s image.” (Thanks to CCJ for showing me this.)
Last week, I wrote about how Musk, Peter Thiel, and others in their circle believe that freedom and democracy are no longer “compatible.” People who don’t want democracy don’t have many alternatives, which is why Peter Thiel and friends support the idea of an elected autocrat. A person who prefers an autocrat doesn’t want freedom of the press. Freedom of the press is protected in the constitution precisely because the first thing an autocrat wants to do is control the press.
In banning journalists while declaring himself a “free speech absolutist,” Musk was demonstrating that “free speech absolutism” is just another name for a Russian propaganda technique known as “noise.”
The notion that all voices, including “dissenting” voices, must be heard makes sense if the dissenters agree on the basic facts (like “up is up” and “Biden won the 2020 election”). In an intact public sphere (which is required for a working democracy) people agree on the facts but disagree on the best way forward. But if the “dissenting voices” amount to conspiracy theories and lies, the “all voices deserve equal consideration” policy becomes a way to elevate and legitimize lies and conspiracy theories. This elevates and legitimizes lies. It also crowds the airways, jams the signals, and confuses people with noise.
Insisting that lies share a platform with truth under the guise of “all voices must be heard” is thus a technique for spreading and giving credence to disinformation, which creates confusion and undermines factuality, which in turn destroys democracy.
The propagandist has a neat tool. He accuses people who want to de-platform lies of being opposed to “free speech.” This confuses people and is thus effective.
After elevating lies, the Free Speech Absolutist shuts down the opposition on invented grounds
The final stage in the propaganda technique is for the propagandist to silence truth on invented grounds such as, “That person is advancing pedophilia,” or, in Musk’s case, “That person is revealing my location.”
“Free Speech absolutism” has nothing to do with the First Amendment
The First Amendment offers protection from the government:
Saying “You’re a fat ugly pig” is allowable under the First Amendment, but a person who goes around saying things like this deserves to be shunned and ignored. We teach our children manners. There are things you don’t say. “Look at that fat ugly lady,” is one of them. “Hitler had great ideas,” is another. Manners and social norms have nothing whatsoever to do with Constitutional protections. If you enter a person’s place of business and say, “Hitler had great ideas,” and the business owner escorts you out, that business owner has not violated your Constitutional rights.
False Equivalence
Sometimes I can’t tell whether propagandists are stupid and believe their own nonsense or whether they are cleverly advancing well-known propaganda techniques, such as False Equivalence. Like this:
- Conservatives complained when Trump was banned from Twitter for spreading election lies and inciting a literal insurrection in which people died.
- Liberals complained when journalists were banned from Twitter on Elon Musk’s whim.
- The propagandist says, “you’re hypocrites! You liked it when Conservatives were banned, but now you complain when liberals are banned.”
The problem with that, of course, is that the reasons for the banning are not the same. Being banned for spreading lies and inciting an insurrection is not the same as being banned on the whim of the owner.
At the same time, analogies comparing Musk to autocratic political leaders are misplaced. The better analogy is that Twitter is a business run by a right-wing fanatic who is attempting to turn it into a mouthpiece for right-wing propaganda.
The problem with a liar is you never know whether they are lying on purpose because they are evil, or they are lying because they have serious issues. I mean, maybe Musk really believes in the QAnon conspiracy theories and thinks that most mainstream journalists (the ones he banned were from NBC and the New York Times) are evil liars. As I was writing this, Musk had this conversation:
“Catturd,” incidentally, has a “verified” badge because he agreed to pay Musk $8 monthly. (For people not accustomed to Twitter, before Musk, the badge meant that you were notable in government or one of the professions. Musk said that policy was “corrupt” and now sells verification.)
It’s Musk’s platform, so he makes the rules, but we don’t have to listen to him or support his platform.
The Dominion / Fox Defamation Lawsuit
The First Amendment protects lies, but no rights are absolute. Sometimes lies are so egregious that they can cause a person financial and other damages, in which case the person who was the target of the lies can sue for damages.
Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News provides an example.
Background: Fox News spread lies about Dominion Voting Machines which caused the company financial damages and made company employees and executives the targets of harassment and death threats. Dominion Voting Systems therefore sued Fox for $1.6 billion claiming that Fox knowingly spread false claims that its machines were used to rig the 2020 election. (The complaint is here.)
Fox tried to get the case tossed out on First Amendment grounds but lost, so the case is going forward. The law that applies comes from a Supreme Court case called New York Times v. Sullivan.
New York Times v. Sullivan in a nutshell: The dispute arose during the 1960s Civil Rights. The New York Times published an ad seeking contributions to defend Martin Luther King. Sullivan, a city Public Safety Commissioner in Alabama, understood that the ad was criticizing him and his subordinates. Hoping to put the pro-civil rights New York Times out of business, Sullivan sued the New York Times and a group of Black Alabama ministers for libel on the grounds that the ad contained a few factual inaccuracies and libeled him. (He was not mentioned by name in the ad.) He sued under Alabama libel law. A local jury in Alabama awarded Sullivan $500,000 in damages against New York Times, a staggering amount for a newspaper to pay. The Alabama State Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
The New York Times appealed to the US Supreme Court. The question was whether the Alabama libel law constitutionally infringed on the New York Times’ First Amendment’s freedom of speech and freedom of press protections.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court set out a standard for deciding when a publication is liable for lies or inaccuracies:
The standard is meant to be difficult to meet. The idea is that it shouldn’t be too easy for people to put newspapers out of business or sue and bankrupt a person who criticized you. Under the heightened standard, Sullivan lost. Imagine if Sullivan had won: Segregationalists would have gone around putting any newspaper that “libeled” them out of business. If you criticized segregationalists, one could sue you.
One of the issues in Dominion Voting Machines v. Fox is presumably whether Dominion is a public figure. It appears that is still to be decided. If Dominion is not a public figure (and of course, Dominion will certainly argue that it is just a company that makes a product and is not a “public figure”) it will be easier for them to prevail.
Dominion is now deposing Rubert Murdoch and other top executives. I am not a civil litigator, but I assume that discovery works the way criminal investigations work: They start with the lowest rung and work upward in the hopes that underlings will implicate their bosses. They’re looking for evidence that Fox executives or employees lied with “knowledge of or reckless disregard for their falsity.”
Will Dominion win?
I hope so.
The Challenge to the Obstruction Statute
Now, I am entirely changing the subject to criminal investigations.
One of my readers on Mastodon said this:
Teri, I’m so angry today that the DC circuit is considering overturning hundreds of convictions today based on Carl Nichols objections to the obstruction charge.
You may have seen the headlines, which looked like this
Federal appeals judges weigh fate of hundreds of Jan. 6 cases:
Hundreds of prosecutions in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot were hanging in the balance as a panel of federal judges on Monday debated the constitutionality of the Justice Department’s lead felony charge.
Here’s what is going on. Prosecutors have been getting convictions against January 6 insurrectionists under U.S.C. 1512 (c) (2) which says:
“Whoever corruptly … obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so” has violated U.S.C. 1512 (c) (2) — and violating this statute is a felony that carries a penalty of up to 20 years in federal prison.”
Defense lawyers have been trying, so far without success, to throw out charges under this section of the U.S. Code by arguing (among other things) that it was not intended to apply to something like the January 6 attack.
Defense arguments focus on the legislative history and purpose of the statute. The law was enacted in 2002 after the Enron accounting fraud scandal. On Oct. 17, 2001, the Securities and Exchange Commission informed the Enron Corporation that it had initiated a formal inquiry into its accounting practices. Two days later, Enron’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, launched what prosecutors called a “wholesale destruction” of documents. Later, they defended the shredding of documents on the grounds that under the law as it then stood, destroying evidence was illegal only if an official proceeding was pending.
So Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which included the section on obstructing official proceedings, as a comprehensive revision of corporate accounting practices. Since then, the statutory language has been used to preserve evidence in investigations of white-collar crime and penalize those who destroy such evidence.
Given this background, Jan. 6 defendants have argued that an “official proceeding” under this statute is limited to hearings where evidence is being presented and facts or rights are being determined. The counting of electoral votes, they argue, was a “ceremonial and administrative event” and not an “official proceeding” under the law. Therefore, they argue, charges brought against the insurrectionists for obstructing the counting of electoral votes should be dismissed.
The defendants were mostly losing on these arguments in court. Now, as expected, they are raising these arguments on appeal. I expect they will lose but you never know. Two of the justices on the panel felt there were problems with the defense reading of the statute and DOJ reading, so the appellate court may come up with something in between.
I would assume that anyone convicted of obstruction was also convicted of other offenses like trespass, so what the defendants are mostly hoping for is a reduction in prison sentences.
Prosecutors always knew that this would be challenged on appeal. Defense attorneys are allowed to challenge statutes. That’s what they do. Courts “consider” things. That’s also what they do. (And they often get it wrong.)
Someone on Mastodon responded with this:
All challenges? what about ones made in bad faith to weaponize the system against victims? what we see Trump and his allies do time and again.
The legal standard is that lawyers can bring challenges as long as they are not frivolous. This means almost anything goes and it’s up to the court to decide whether the challenge has merit.
When I brought appeals on behalf of indigents, some people told me I was wasting state resources on unworthy people, or people who were obviously guilty. The thing about procedure is that it has to apply equally to all people, those you like and those you don’t like, those you think are guilty, and those you think are getting a bad rap because they’re poor and everything is stacked against them (like my clients.)
Defense lawyers have a duty to their clients. If they don’t offer a robust defense, they’re actually in violation of their ethical obligation.
Now I’ll jump up on my soapbox and address the: “Why hasn’t Trump been indicted yet and thrown into prison when we all know he is guilty?” crowd.
It isn’t so easy, and it isn’t meant to be. Indictments are just the beginning. You can count on objections, motions, a nail-biting trial, jurors who may secretly be MAGA fanatics, appeals, etc. It’s not like in the movies. In real life, it’s a long harrowing process.
Speaking of long harrowing processes, I updated my FAQ page to include the most recent events. (Updates are in red.)
Multi-tasking: Sunbathing while making sure nobody comes through the door.
That quote is so apt for the timing of this piece. It’s tough out there. Thank you for being so smart and brave and for keeping us all informed. I am trying to wean myself away from Twitter. Put myself on the Wait List for Post. Be safe!
Good explanations. Just one nit: on the section about false equivalence, item 3 reads:
“The propagandist says, “you’re hypocrites! You didn’t like it when Conservatives were banned, but now you complain when liberals are banned.”
Shouldn’t that be:
“The propagandist says, “you’re hypocrites! You LIKED it when Conservatives were banned, but now you complain when liberals are banned.”
Musk is clearly trying to take away factual voices and turn Twitter into a hard right propaganda machine. Seems like he’s mostly going after large, influential accounts of reason. I agree that we shouldn’t support that.
Thanks will fix
Regarding Musk and the ‘technology is god’ crowd: I have believed for decades that these folks (mostly guys) sincerely think that high-level tech knowledge beats any other field or discipline or interest. There is an arrogance for logic, compassion and information that is not gained with the involvement of devices and/or programs that must first digest bytes and decide what they mean.
As for the legal issue of whether an official process is being conducted (when documents or other data is sought by a public authority such as the FBI, NASA, whatever: it seems there needs to be a legal standard or precedent to establish that request/demand for information/documents/materials by any such entity for purposes of an investigation constitutes an official proceeding. Otherwise we’re just splitting hairs for no real purpose.
I like your blogs! Nice to see intelligence and logic in the middle of so much low flying crap!
I appreciate the time and effort you make to educate and inform those of us without legal backgrounds. Also, thanks for all your ideas to support democracy. You provide a tremendous public service!
I have one suggestion for your consideration: Instead of using the term “indigents,” might I suggest “people who are indigent”?
Thanks for listening.
Thank you. Cogent explanation for purpose of keeping your twitter account open. I deleted (prosecute Fauci was my red line) am uncertain about my next step, but sure am glad I signed up for notification of your weekly posts (also a soothing less frantic cycle). Your wisdom knowledge & compassion appreciated. (& fluid writing!)
Much as how a third of eligible voters don’t bother, because they don’t understand or care about how our system of government works, the many many people whining about why isn’t Trump in prison don’t understand or care about how our judicial system works.
In a twisted way, it’s like how conservatives like Musk are convinced the 1st amendment means you have to be allowed to say whatever you want wherever you want. It’s willful ignorance in service of instant gratification.
Regarding NYT v Sullivan, I think it’s worth mentioning that the Stable Genius said quite a few times that he wanted to change defamation law to remove the malice standard. I suppose he believed that his favorite Justices would do so if he asked them to.
The “technology is god” billionaires like Musk and Thiel will ensure it is soon a “Blade Runner” world.
Plain and simply put.
“Twitter is a business run by a right-wing fanatic who is attempting to turn it into a mouthpiece for right-wing propaganda”. Teri Kanefield.
Thanks for providing clarity, in the midst of all the noise.
I will be joining Post’s wait list.
Thank you Teri.
You are such a great source of knowledge and legal analysis.
Have nice holidays. Peace.
Manners. What a concept. The concept seems to be going in the same direction as public service. Thanks Teri, I hope you and JJ have a peaceful holiday.
Arguing that the counting of electoral votes was a ceremonial event rather than an official proceeding denies the intent to stop it to prevent Biden from getting the requisite electoral votes to be declared the winner.
I’ve been happy with Post as have been other Twitter refugees. You’ll be welcomed.
Thank you
Thank you so much for what you do! I really appreciate the fact that you no longer post your analysis on Twitter. I wish more people would follow your lead. I am following you on Post and on Mastodon.
One question re both platforms. I was basically a *reader* on Twitter. I followed some people and set the app to get notifications for when some of the people I followed posted. That’s what I care about and I can’t find it anywhere in the settings. I.E., I want to know when you have put up a new post. Maybe you know how to do this?
good question!
I’m just wanting to express my appreciation for your willingness to share your knowledge and expertise. I need help to understand all the legal jargon. Justice and law and order seem to get increasingly complicated over the course of our history. My brain finds science so much easier to understand. Thank you for helping us. Twitter led me to you, but I could no longer take the toxicity there. Thank you so much. I want to read one of your books but don’t know where to start, there are so many!
Thank you for your posts. Elon has successfully replaced Trump as a centerpiece of attention for acting like a Troll on Twitter. He plays with his new toy to show off to his South African friends that he is still dedicated to their fight and plight. And, like Trump, he will see a similar fate as his empire is collapsing. Strike up David Byrne and the Talking Heads – “Burning Down the House” – the lyrics are apropos. “Fightin’ fire with fire”…
On mastodon you click on the person you follows name and then you will see the bell. Just click on the bell for that person and you will get their notifications. I use the advanced web interface. aliza
Good read, thank you.
I had no idea, Aliza. Thank you.
By allowing free speech, a good thing, the 1st amendment opens up the possibility of destroying the constitution. A campaign of billionaire funded lies etc could end up popularising and creating new amendments that systematically hand power to the wealthy, as opposed to the good of the people. Perhaps ultimately to the loss of 1st amendment altogether?
What are the underlying principles that presently protect against such things happening? Is it true that the 1st amendment contains within itself the seeds for its own destruction?
.
Get on your Mastodon account. Search for the account (example: @Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online). When the search result shows up, click on it. Follow the account, if you don’t already; this only works with followed accounts. Immediately to the right of the Follow/Unfollow button should be a bell like symbol. If you hover over the bell with your mouse cursor, you should get a text bubble that says “Notify me when @Teri_Kanefield posts”. Click this bell ONCE. It will make a very subtle change in color on most instances, easy to miss. If you want to check if you did it right, hover over it a again (careful not to click) and you should get a text bubble that says “Stop notifying me when @Teri_Kanefield posts”.
You can see this same explanation in a toot, but with screen captures too, at this link:
https://qoto.org/@EubieDrew/109535628629636295
The First Amendment protects people from the government intruding on their speech. Allowing the government to intrude on free speech cannot possibly save democracy.
I think what’s bothering you is that democracy is fragile: People will always seek to destroy it, and at any given time, a majority of voters can elect to end the democracy by voting for candidates who promise to dismantle the democratic institutions.
People think we can save democracy by outlawing anti-democratic behavior, but you just can’t. The only way to save democracy is for a majority of voters to care enough to do the work necessary.
For what I mean, see my to-do list: https://terikanefield.com/things-to-do/
Years ago I was a federal criminal investigator. During a trial the defense raised an objection which the trial judge overruled. The defense attorney complained the judge was wrong in his ruling, to which the judge replied “I don’t get paid to be right, I get paid to make a decision” implying of course there are apppeals courts for a reason. Never forgot that.
This works on the web interface but not on most of the mobile apps I’ve tried (the bell icon just doesn’t appear when you look at someone’s profile). It does work on the Metatext app though! Hoping and expecting the other apps will catch up soon. Everything Mastodon-related is moving VERY quickly right now.
I’m sure that job gave you a great perspective.
As a former defense lawyer, I just don’t get unglued over everything that goes wrong. I would never have survived the years I did defense work.
“an elected autocrat.”
RIP irony.
(Autocrats, given even half a chance, ensure that they can’t be unelected.)
> Musk was demonstrating that “free speech absolutism” is just another name for a Russian propaganda technique known as “noise.”
Delicious. 🙂 Thank you.
Excellent Elmo take-down this week! Cheers – B
On Mastodon, I use a reader static web app to use Mastodon, called Pinafore.Social. There is an “alarm bell” symbal in the menu that allows me to get notifications of all posts from my chosen ‘notification’ accounts. Simply go to user’s account that you follow and tap the alarm bell. Every app has that setting in different spots. You’ll find it if you learn the ins and outs of the web-based or dedicated app you use on your device.
That feature is available in original web based Mastodon app (and I believe all apps I have tried on web or IOS) and listed as “Notifications.”
Depending on your chosen layout in viewing Mastodon, it is located in different places.
Key word: “Notifications” (alarm bell symbol)
Yet again, thank you for your service Teri!
You are a life ring in a turbulent sea.
Hi Linda:
To get notifications on Mastodon when your favorite accounts post something, *I think * may depend on which App you used to access the website.
I use the Metatext App because it seems to work better for iPhone and it has slightly better features than the Mastodon App. When I look at someone’s Mastodon profile page, I press the Follow button to Follow that page. Immediately afterward, it shows Followed and right next to it, a little bell symbol appears. I click on it to receive notifications of that account’s posts at the top of my notification inbox.
The Post website is still in beta mode, meaning they’re literally still building the website while it is in use. They roll out new features as they become ready. They do not yet have a feature which lets users receive notifications of their favorite accounts new posts. I believe they will eventually have this feature.
You are welcome – I learned how to do that so I could get your notifications on here:o)
Thank you so much for your rational, calming newsletter, you keep me informed and sane! I hope you have a peaceful, restful and lovely holiday. JJ is precious, and a brilliant multitasker
Yep, I follow Teri on Mastodon and boost away. I prefer the WEB UI as well. If I have to use the app, I use MetaText for iPhone. The phone apps don’t yet have the flexibility or the bells and whistles Mastodon web has. But with so many people migrating to Mastodon from Twitter, it could happen sooner rather than later.
Thanks, Teri–you’re the best!
Yep, I follow Teri on Mastodon and boost away. I prefer the WEB UI as well. If I have to use the app, I use MetaText for iPhone. The phone apps don’t yet have the flexibility or the bells and whistles Mastodon web has. But with so many people migrating to Mastodon from Twitter, it could happen sooner rather than later.
Thanks, Teri–you’re the best!
I was invited to Post, but I think I’ll decline. Like Twitter, it is owned by a corporation that determines the algorithm for everyone. I prefer the more decentralized Fediverse where we each create our own algorithm for our feeds though our follows, likes, and boosts..
First Amendment “free speech” is no defense to any of the crimes that can send you to prison & fine you thousands for lying to IRS, DHS, FBI, or for lying for a profit or official job or power or other benefit. The 1A shouldn’t be a defense to political & news lying either.
You don’t see the problem with prosecuting a person who tells a “political” lie? Think about it. Think about the difference between lying on your taxes and telling a “political” lie.
If you don’t see the problem, read last week’s post, “Disillusioned with Democracy.”
Hi Teri, and thanks for all you do to keep us sane!
Could you jump ahead a bit, and talk about how jury selection would go for all the upcoming TFG trials? I worry that it would only take one surreptitious MAGAt to let him escape…?
Thanks
Geoff
I assume the case will be brought in D.C., which means it would be harder for Trump to seat a MAGA juror. Juries generally try to do what is right and they are fact-finders. They don’t get to decide the law.
I will add though, each time a large account says “He’s obviously guilty why isn’t he in prison yet” one of the things I think about is jury selection.
Here’s the thing though: It could happen. Trials are always uncertain. That’s why whenever possible the prosecution tries to get a plea agreement.
Thank you so much for these regular explanations! Every time you update the FAQ’s page I get lost in re-reading some of the earlier FAQ’s. I especially love to read about the lady asleep in the back of the truck. Thank you for helping her, too.
I’m following you on Mastodon. I love it there. If more of my favorite follows were there, I wouldn’t need the bird at all. I haven’t gone to Post, yet. Maybe later.
Have a lovely holiday!
I have noticed that my phone (Android) app version of Mastodon DOES have the bell show up but my iPad version of Mastodon does not have the bell. So…I wonder if this is the case for others too?
Hi Teri,
I’m so glad you picked up on the subject of lying, I think it is the central question for our democracy: How do we deal with a politically powerful faction that has no commitment to telling the truth? You mentioned manners, and I think we tend to look at lying as an issue related to bad manners. Part of our problem at this point is that we have yet to understand the demopathic (like sociopathic but for democracy) consequences of a major polity that lies with gusto. It’s not just incidental lying, or looseness with the facts, they do it with the intention of undermining the very foundations of knowledge and epistemology so that they can say anything they want and their people will believe it because with the truth so sullied they can only take it on authority. Enter the Trumps and Musks of the world.
You said “Liberals complained when journalists were banned from Twitter on Elon Musk’s whim.” I think it is wrong to see Musk’s ban as whim, even if Musk is ignorant of the larger strategic value of discrediting journalists and their institutions, which I am sure he is not. Musk’s ban of journalists works in concert with one of the most sinister and effective strategies in the conservative playbook, which is to discredit and sow mistrust on the institutions of fact, most especially the news media, but ultimately to cast doubt on anyone who speaks truth. Their forty-year campaign to tear down the “lamestream media” has opened the door to the “all liars deserve to be heard” argument now playing out in Fox News, Q-Anon, and among all conservative political leaders. Lying, like obeisance to Trump, is a performative requirement, a badge of conservative identity.
For most journalists and their employers, a commitment to truth-telling is a non-negotiable foundational requirement of their work, but in the confusion created by conservative lies and distortions, it has become extremely difficult to tell who is and isn’t telling the truth, even for those who support truth telling. To say that Musk banned those journalists on a whim ignores the truly demopathic effects of all conservative gestures in that vein. We have to call them out on it.
Interesting that you asked this question. I’m planning a two-part series on dealing with people who lie for political power.
Thanks.I may kick off with this.
Hi Teri
The link to your latest blog, “Over The Cliff Notes,” isn’t working. It’s showing an error message. Sent at 9:43 pm ET on Dec 22.
Can you forward your email to tkanefield@gmail.com ?
To say that people are lying for political power I think misses the even more dangerous nature of their quest, which more than political power, is a quest for control of our experience and description of reality. Control of the way we analyze and understand events. A rewriting of the epistemological underpinnings of our society and democracy. The Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries was a rewriting of our epistemological foundation, out of which ideas that blossomed into democracy. The objective of the liars is to undermine the Enlightenment revolution and take us back to authoritarian forms of thought and control, which includes political power but also cultural power.