Jack Balkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Jack Balkin
Jack Balkin, Writers on Writing about Technology roundtable, 2009-09-30.jpg
Born (1956-08-13) August 13, 1956 (age 61)
Kansas City, Missouri
Nationality American
Alma mater A.B. and J.D. degrees from Harvard University; Ph.D. in philosophy from Cambridge University
Known for author of several books; blogs at Balkinization; frequent guest on BloggingHeads.tv
Scientific career
Fields Constitutional law
Institutions Yale Law School

Jack M. Balkin (born August 13, 1956) is an American legal scholar. He is the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. Balkin is the founder and director of the Yale Information Society Project (ISP), a research center whose mission is "to study the implications of the Internet, telecommunications, and the new information technologies for law and society." He also directs the Knight Law and Media Program[1] and the Abrams Institute for Free Expression at Yale Law School.[2]

Balkin publishes the legal blog, Balkinization, and is also a correspondent for The Atlantic. He is a leading scholar of Constitutional and First Amendment law. In addition to his work as a legal scholar, he has also written a book on memes and cultural evolution and has translated and written a commentary on the ancient Chinese Book of Changes, or I Ching.

Education and early career[edit]

Born in Kansas City, Missouri, Balkin received his A.B. and J.D. degrees from Harvard University and his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Cambridge. He clerked for Judge Carolyn Dineen King of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. From 1982 to 1984 he was a litigation associate at the New York law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. He taught at the University of Missouri at Kansas City from 1984 to 1988 and at the University of Texas from 1988 to 1994. He joined the Yale faculty in 1994. He has also taught at Harvard University, New York University, Tel Aviv University, and Queen Mary College at the University of London. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2005.[3]

Memetics, ideology, and transcendence[edit]

Balkin's 1998 book, Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology, argued that ideology could be explained in terms of memes and processes of cultural evolution.[4] He argued that ideology is an effect of the "cultural software" or tools of understanding that become part of human beings and that are produced through the evolution and transmission of memes. At the same time, Balkin argued that all ideological and moral analysis presupposes a transcendent ideal of truth and "a transcendent value of justice."[5] Like T. K. Seung, he suggests that a transcendent idea of justice—although incapable of perfect realization and inevitably "indeterminate"—underlies political discourse and political persuasion.[6]

Ideological drift and legal semiotics[edit]

Balkin coined the term ideological drift to describe a phenomenon by which ideas and concepts change their political valence as they are introduced into new social and political contexts over time. Along with Duncan Kennedy, Balkin developed the field of legal semiotics. Legal semiotics shows how legal arguments feature recurrent tropes[7] or topoi that respond to each other and whose opposition is reproduced at higher and lower levels of doctrinal detail as legal doctrines evolve. Hence Balkin claimed that legal argument has a self-similar "crystalline"[8] or fractal structure. Balkin employed deconstruction and related literary theories to argue that legal thought was structured in terms of "nested oppositions"—opposed ideas or concepts that turn into each other over time or otherwise depend on each other in novel and unexpected ways.[9] Although he draws on literary theory in his work on legal rhetoric, Balkin and his frequent co-author Sanford Levinson contend law is best analogized not to literature but to the performing arts such as music and drama.[10]

Partisan entrenchment[edit]

Balkin and Levinson argue that constitutional revolutions in judicial doctrine occur through a process called partisan entrenchment.[11] The party that controls the White House can stock the federal courts with new judges and Justices who have views on key constitutional issues roughly similar to those of the President. This shifts the median Justice on the Supreme Court and changes the complexion of the lower federal courts, which, in turn, eventually affects constitutional doctrine. If enough new judges are appointed in a relatively short period of time, changes will occur more quickly, producing a constitutional revolution. For example, a constitutional revolution occurred following the New Deal because Franklin Roosevelt was able to appoint eight new Supreme Court Justices between 1937 and 1941. Balkin and Levinson's theory contrasts with Bruce Ackerman's theory of constitutional moments, which argues that constitutional revolutions occur because of self-conscious acts of democratic mobilization that establish new standards of political legitimacy. Balkin and Levinson view partisan entrenchment as roughly but imperfectly democratic; it guarantees neither legitimate nor correct constitutional interpretation.

Constitutional interpretation[edit]

Balkin's constitutional theory, developed in his 2011 book, Living Originalism, is both originalist and living constitutionalist. He argues that there is no contradiction between these approaches, properly understood. Interpreters must follow the original meaning of the constitutional text but not its original expected application; hence much constitutional interpretation actually involves constitutional construction and state building by all three branches of government. Balkin's "framework originalism"[12] views the Constitution as an initial framework for governance that sets politics in motion and makes politics possible; it must be filled out over time through constitutional construction and state building. This process of building out the Constitution is living constitutionalism.

Freedom of Speech and Democratic culture[edit]

Balkin's work on the First Amendment argues that the purpose of the free speech principle is to promote what he calls a democratic culture.[13][14] The idea of democratic culture is broader than a concern with democratic deliberation or democratic self-government, and emphasizes individual freedom, cultural participation and mutual influence. A democratic culture is one in which ordinary individuals can participate in the forms of culture that in turn help shape and constitute them as persons. Balkin argues that free speech on the Internet is characterized by two features: "routing around" media gatekeepers, and "glomming on"—non-exclusive appropriation of cultural content that is melded with other sources to create new forms of culture. These distinctive features of Internet speech, he argues, are actually features of speech in general and thus lead to a focus on democratic participation in culture.

Balkin argues that protection of freedom of speech in the digital age will increasingly rely less on judge-made doctrines of the First Amendment and more on legislation, administrative regulation, and technological design.[15] He argues that we have moved beyond the traditional dyadic model of free expression in which nation states regulated the speech of their citizens. Instead, digital speech involves a pluralist model. In the pluralist model, territorial governments continue to regulate speech directly. But they also attempt to coerce or co-opt owners of digital infrastructure to regulate the speech of others. This is "new school" speech regulation.[16] Digital infrastructure owners, and especially social media companies, now act as private governors of speech communities, creating and enforcing various rules and norms of the communities they govern. Finally, end users, civil society organizations, hackers, and other private actors repeatedly put pressure on digital infrastructure companies to regulate speech in certain ways and not to regulate it in others. This triangular tug of war—rather than the traditional dyadic model of states regulating the speech of private parties—characterizes the practical ability to speak in the algorithmic society.[17]

The National Surveillance State[edit]

In a 2006 essay with Levinson,[18] and a 2008 article,[19] Balkin discusses the emergence of a "National Surveillance State" that uses the collection, collation and analysis of information to govern. The National Surveillance State is a natural byproduct of technological development and demands for government services. Balkin argues that "[t]he question is not whether we will have a surveillance state in the years to come, but what sort of state we will have."[20]

Balkin distinguishes between two models: an authoritarian information state and a democratic information state. Authoritarian information states are information misers and information gluttons: they collect as much information as possible and they resist sharing it or making their own operations public. Democratic information states are information gourmets and information philanthropists: they collect only what they need, they produce information for and share information with their citizens and they make their own operations democratically accountable. Democratic information states also destroy government collected information when it is no longer necessary. In practice, much privacy protection came from the fact that people forgot what had happened. But in the digital age, nothing is ever forgotten, so appropriate discarding of the results of government surveillance must be mandated.[21] [22]

As the surveillance state grows, Balkin argues, new civil liberties protections are necessary, just as they were necessary with the growth of the administrative state after the New Deal and the National Security State after World War II. The executive branch must be redesigned with internal checks and balances to police itself, to report on its activities, and to prevent abuse. Finally, technology must be used to record what officials do and look for signs of government misconduct: "The best way to control the watchers is to watch them as well."[23]

Information fiduciaries, robotics, and artificial intelligence[edit]

Balkin coined the term "information fiduciary" to describe the legal and ethical obligations of digital businesses and social media companies.[24][25] He argues that people must trust and depend on certain digital businesses and social media companies, and are especially vulnerable to them. Therefore the digital age has produced a new kind of fiduciary obligation analogous to those the law imposes on money managers and on professionals like doctors, lawyers, and accountants.

Balkin argues that digital information fiduciaries must act in a trusthworthy fashion toward their end-users. They must respect end-user privacy and may not manipulate end-users. Those who develop and employ robots, artificial intelligence agents, and algorithms may also be information fiduciaries toward their customers and end-users. In addition, firms may not engage in "algorithmic nuisance": using people's digital identities to discriminate and manipulate them and shifting the costs of algorithmic decisionmaking onto the general public.[26]

Balkin argues that the obligations of information fiduciaries and the duty not to be algorithmic nuislances are part of new laws of robotics. Unlike Asimov's famous three laws of robotics, these laws are directed not to robots but to the people and organizations who design, own, and operate them. Balkin argues that robotic and artificial intelligence technologies mediate relationships of power between different groups of people; therefore law must focus on regulating the people, firms, and social groups who use robots and artificial intelligence as much as on the technologies themselves.[27]

Selected works[edit]

As author[edit]

As editor[edit]

  • The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford Univ. Press 2009 ISBN 978-0-19-538796-4) (with Reva B. Siegel)
  • Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (NYU Press 2007 ISBN 978-0-8147-9983-3) (with James Grimmelmann et al.)
  • The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (NYU Press 2006 ISBN 0-8147-9972-8) (with Beth Simone Noveck)
  • What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (NYU Press 2005 ISBN 0-8147-9918-3)
  • What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said (NYU Press 2001 ISBN 0-8147-9890-X)
  • Legal Canons (NYU Press 2000 ISBN 0-8147-9857-8) (with Sanford Levinson)
  • Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (Aspen Publications, 5th edition 2006 ISBN 978-0-7355-5062-9) (with Paul Brest, Sanford Levinson, Akhil Amar, and Reva Siegel).

Journal articles[edit]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ The Knight Law and Media Program at Yale Law School, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-08-14. Retrieved 2012-07-12. 
  2. ^ The Floyd Abrams Institute for Free Expression, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-08-19. Retrieved 2012-07-12. 
  3. ^ "Book of Members, 1780-2010: Chapter B" (PDF). American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Retrieved 9 May 2011. 
  4. ^ Cultural Software, p. 14, 42-45
  5. ^ Cultural Software, p. 143
  6. ^ Cultural Software, p. 144. See Seung's Intuition and Construction: The Foundation of Normative Theory, pp. 194–99 and Plato Rediscovered: Human Value and Social Order, pp. xi–xii.
  7. ^ "A Night in the Topics: The Reason of Legal Rhetoric and the Rhetoric of Legal Reason," in Law's Stories: Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law 211-224 (P. Brooks and P. Gewirth, eds., Yale Univ. Press, 1996) Archived 2006-06-14 at the Wayback Machine.. Available at "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2006-06-14. Retrieved 2006-07-18. 
  8. ^ The Crystalline Structure of Legal Thought, 39 Rutgers L. Rev. 1 (1986) Archived 2002-09-23 at the Wayback Machine.. Available at "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2002-09-23. Retrieved 2012-11-05. 
  9. ^ Deconstruction's Legal Career, 27 Cardozo Law Review 719 (2005). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=842284 (November 13, 2005); Deconstructive Practice and Legal Theory, 96 Yale L.J. 743 (1987)
  10. ^ Balkin, Verdi's High C, __ Tex. L. Rev. __ (2013). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2240496 ; Balkin and Levinson, Interpreting Law and Music: Performance Notes on "The Banjo Serenader" and "The Lying Crowd of Jews," 20 Cardozo L. Rev. 1513 (1999); Balkin and Levinson, Law, Music, and Other Performing Arts, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1597 (1991)
  11. ^ The Processes of Constitutional Change: From Partisan Entrenchment to the National Surveillance State, 75 Fordham Law Review 489 (2006). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=930514 (September 17, 2006)
  12. ^ Framework Originalism and the Living Constitution,103 Nw. L. Rev. 549 (2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1290869 (October 23, 2008)
  13. ^ Digital Speech and Democratic Culture, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (2004). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=470842 (December 3, 2003)
  14. ^ Cultural Democracy and the First Amendment, 110 Nw. L. Rev. 1053 (2016). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2676027 (October 19, 2015)
  15. ^ The Future of Free Expression in a Digital Age, 36 Pepperdine L. Rev. 427 (2008-2009). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1335055 (January 29, 2009)
  16. ^ Old School/New School Speech Regulation, 127 Harv. L. Rev. 2296 (2014). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2377526 (January 12, 2014)
  17. ^ Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society, 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2018). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3038939 (September 20, 2017)
  18. ^ The Processes of Constitutional Change: From Partisan Entrenchment to the National Surveillance State, 75 Fordham Law Review 489(2006). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=930514 (September 17, 2006)
  19. ^ The Constitution in the National Surveillance State 93 Minnesota Law Review 1 (2008). Available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1141524 (June 10, 2008)
  20. ^ The Constitution in the National Surveillance State, at 3-4.
  21. ^ Mike Konczal, Is a democratic surveillance state possible?, Washington Post, June 8, 2013, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/08/is-a-democratic-surveillance-state-possible/
  22. ^ Paul Krugman: Government Tilting Towards 'Authoritarian Surveillance' State, ABC News, June 9, 2013, at http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/paul-krugman-government-tilting-towards-authoritarian-surveillance-state/
  23. ^ The Constitution in the National Surveillance State, at p. 24
  24. ^ Jack Balkin, "Information Fiduciaries in the Digital Age, Balkinization, March 5th, 2014, at https://balkin.blogspot.com/2014/03/information-fiduciaries-in-digital-age.html
  25. ^ Information Fiduciaries and the First Amendment 49 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1183 (2016). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2675270 (October 18, 2015)
  26. ^ The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data 78 Ohio St. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2018). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2890965 (December 29, 2016)
  27. ^ Jack Balkin on Robots, Algorithms, and Big Data. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nKNAa1R4H4 (February 23, 2017)

External links[edit]