Twitters banning of Trump an action also taken by other social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat has opened a fierce debate about freedom of expression and who, if anyone, should control it in the United States.
Ive written and taught about this fundamental issue for decades. Im a staunch proponent of the First Amendment.
Yet Im perfectly OK with Trumps ban, for reasons legal, philosophical and moral.
To begin, its important to point out what kind of freedom of expression the First Amendment and its extension to local government via the Fourteenth Amendment protect. The Supreme Court, through various decisions, has ruled that the government cannot restrict speech, the press and other forms of communications media, whether its on the internet or in newspapers.
Twitter and other social media platforms are not the government. Therefore, their actions are not violations of the First Amendment.
But if were champions of freedom of expression, shouldnt we nonetheless be distressed by any restriction on communication, be it via a government agency or a corporation?
I certainly am. Ive called nongovernmental suppressions of speech to be violations of the spirit of the First Amendment.
Every time CBS bleeps a performance of a hip-hop artist on the Grammys, the network is, in my view, engaging in censorship that violates the spirit of the First Amendment. The same is true whenever a private university forbids a peaceful student demonstration.
These forms of censorship may be legal, but the government often lurks behind the actions of these private entities. For example, when the Grammys are involved, the censorship is taking place out of fear of governmental reprisal via the Federal Communications Commission.
So, why, then, am I OK with the fact that Twitter and other social media platforms took down Trumps account? And, while were at it, why am I fine with Amazon Web Services removing the Trump-friendly social media outlet Parler?
First, a violation of the spirit of the First Amendment is never as serious as a violation of the First Amendment itself.
When the government gets in the way of our right to freely communicate, Americans only recourse is the U.S. Supreme Court, which all too often has supported the government wrongly, in my view.
The courts 1919 clear and present danger and 1978 seven dirty words decisions are among the most egregious examples of such flouting of the First Amendment. The 1919 decision qualified the crystal-clear language of the First Amendment Congress shall make no law with the vague exception that government could, in fact, ban speech in the face of a clear and present danger. The 1978 decision defined broadcast language meriting censorship with the even vaguer indecency.
And a government ban on any kind of communication, ratified by the Supreme Court, applies to any and all activity in the United States period until the court overturns the original decision.
In contrast, social media users can take their patronage elsewhere if they dont approve of a decision made by a social media company. Amazon Web Services, though massive, is not the only app host available. Parler may have already found a new home on the far-right hosting service Epik, though Epik disputes this.
The point is that a corporate violation of the spirit of the First Amendment is, in principle, remediable, whereas a government violation of the First Amendment is not at least not immediately.
Second, the First Amendment, let alone the spirit of the First Amendment, doesnt protect communication that amounts to a conspiracy to commit a crime, and certainly not murder.
I would argue that its plainly apparent that Trumps communication whether it was suggesting the injection of disinfectant to counteract COVID-19 or urging his supporters to fight to overturn the election repeatedly endangered human life.
Given that Trump was still president albeit with just a few weeks left in office when Twitter banned him, that ban was, indeed, a big deal.
Jack Dorsey, co-founder and CEO of Twitter, appreciated both the need and perils of such a ban, tweeting, This moment in time might call for this dynamic, but over the long term it will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet. A company making a business decision to moderate itself is different from a government removing access, yet can feel much the same.
In other words, a company that violates the spirit of the First Amendment can feel much the same to the public as government actually violating the First Amendment.
To be sure, I think its concerning that a powerful cohort of social media executives can deplatform anyone they want. But the alternative could be far worse.
Back in 1998, many were worried about the seeming monopolistic power of Microsoft. Although the U.S. government won a limited antitrust suit, it declined to pursue further efforts to break up Microsoft. At the time, I argued that problems of corporate predominance tend to take care of themselves and are less powerful than the forces of a free marketplace.
Sure enough, the preeminent position of Microsoft was soon contested and replaced by the resurgence of Apple and the rise of Amazon.
Summoning the U.S. government to counter these social media behemoths is the proverbial slippery slope. Keep in mind that the U.S. government already controls a sprawling security apparatus. Its easy to envision an administration with the ability to regulate social media not wielding that power to protect the freedoms of users but instead using it to insulate themselves from criticism and protect their own power.
We may grouse about the immense power of social media companies. But keeping them free from the far more immense power of the government may be crucial to maintaining our freedom.
See the article here:
I'm a First Amendment scholar and I think Big Tech should be left alone - The Conversation US
- College sued for stopping students from handing out Constitution - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employees subpoenaed testimony - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- China toughens environment law to target polluters - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- 1st Amendment - Laws - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- GBS205 Legal Environment -THE FIRST AMENDMENT - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Supreme Court Preview/Review #2 - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 26 - The First Amendment Speech II - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Scalia Ginsburg debate NSA and first amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- Political Correctness vs First Amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- ConLaw Class 25 - The First Amendment -- Speech I - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- The First Amendment - Video - April 26th, 2014 [April 26th, 2014]
- [USA] First Amendment abused - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- Cliven Bundy and the First Amendment - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Tees Co. Inc. FAT-Tee Intro Video of who we are, and what we stand for - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- University Attacks First Amendment Costs $50,000 Plus - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- First Amendment Lawsuit After '8theist' Vanity Plate Denied, 'Baptist' Approved - Video - April 27th, 2014 [April 27th, 2014]
- How A Public Corruption Scandal Became A Fight Over Free Speech - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI; Crystal Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group - Video - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- MSNBC: Marjorie Dannenfelser Discusses SBA List First Amendment Case - Video - April 28th, 2014 [April 28th, 2014]
- United Church of Christ sues over North Carolina ban on same-sex marriage - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Federal judge: Delayed access to court records raises First Amendment concerns - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Justices Troubled By Their Earlier Ruling On Public Employee Speech Rights - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Judge Won't Stop Jason Patric from Using Son's Name for Advocacy Purposes - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- PBL in Journalism I, 2014 - Video - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- John Dukes on First Amendment - Video - April 29th, 2014 [April 29th, 2014]
- Were Sterlings First Amendment Rights Violated? Nope. - April 30th, 2014 [April 30th, 2014]
- Senate Dems vow vote to change Constitution, block campaign funding - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- What happened to Sterling was morally wrong - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Former Supreme Court Justice Wants to Amend the Constitution - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Donald Sterling is my HERO - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Retaining Government Power to Make Economic Policy for Internet Access: Role of the First Amendment - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- America was just defeated from within TODAY 4/29/2014 - Martial law is next - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Opposition To Proposed Monitoring Of Hate Speech By Federal Agency The Kelly File - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Westfield Mayor to pay $53K in campaign sign violation case - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- ConLaw 1 Class 27 - The First Amendment - Free Exercise - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Bar Owner Prevails in Buck Foston First Amendment Trial - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- Was Donald Sterling's First Amendment Right to Free Speech Violated? - Video - May 1st, 2014 [May 1st, 2014]
- First Amendment common sense - May 2nd, 2014 [May 2nd, 2014]
- The First Amendment Doesn't Allow us to Silence Opposition; Get Rid of Limits on Political Speech - Video - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- Save Us Chuck - First Amendment Zones - Video - May 3rd, 2014 [May 3rd, 2014]
- HAROLD PEASE: Free speech zones on Bundy Ranch violated First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Why government can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- In our opinion: Can't tackle hate speech without shredding First Amendment - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Sen. Ed Markey proposes eliminating free speech - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Alabama Chief Justice Stunning Legal Ignorance - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- Church Uses First Amendment Protections To Perform Same Sex Marriages - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- first amendment test filming Tucson FBI Headquarters. - Video - May 4th, 2014 [May 4th, 2014]
- "First Amendment ONLY for Christians," Says Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore - Video - May 5th, 2014 [May 5th, 2014]
- Endangered Speeches - Video - May 5th, 2014 [May 5th, 2014]
- First Amendment Monument Music Video by Daniel Brouse - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- first amendment rights - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- News media challenges ban on journalism drones - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT - Video - May 6th, 2014 [May 6th, 2014]
- Letter: First Amendment rights trampled - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- News outlets say US drone ban breaches First Amendment - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Chucking the First Amendment: Schumers cranky scheme - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Screw the First Amendment | We cant let people pray? - Video - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Chief Justice: 1st Amendment Only Protects Christians - Video - May 8th, 2014 [May 8th, 2014]
- Inside the Classroom with Professor Leslie Kendrick - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- 2014 Civics Video Awards First Amendment - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- .First Amendment protects political speech, not profanity - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- Charles "Chip" Babcock on Campaign Finance and the First Amendment - Video - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- A First Amendment attack on Assembly... in George Washington - May 9th, 2014 [May 9th, 2014]
- SUPREME STUPIDITY Kills The First Amendment - RIP Separation of Church & State (1787-2014) - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- FBI Agents Harass Photographer: First Amendment Test - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- History Project: First Amendment. - Video - May 10th, 2014 [May 10th, 2014]
- SDG&E Challenges The First Amendment and Loses - Video - May 11th, 2014 [May 11th, 2014]
- Richmond City Council Uses Tricks to Undermine First Amendment - Video - May 11th, 2014 [May 11th, 2014]
- Their opinion: Disagreeing on the First Amendment - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- The Clash Between the First Amendment and National Security in Times of War Symposium - Video - May 12th, 2014 [May 12th, 2014]
- City Charter amendment passes 581-556 - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- David Allen Legal Tuesday: Flashing Automobile Lights and the First Amendment - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Senator Chuck Schumer is against the First Amendment then and now - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Facebook SUCKS! - Video - May 15th, 2014 [May 15th, 2014]
- Dems threaten Kochs with a constitutional amendment - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Reid backs campaign spending limit - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- Tennessee Boy Recites First Amendment Rights After Being Told to Put Away His Bible - Video - May 16th, 2014 [May 16th, 2014]
- 'Shutup,' they explained Crippling the First Amendment - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]
- Reid Seeks To Change First Amendment To Stop Koch Brothers - Video - May 18th, 2014 [May 18th, 2014]