Q: I thought the attack on the Capitol Jan. 6 by supporters of President Donald Trump was horrible, but Im really worried about the way social media like Twitter and Facebook are denying people like the president their free-speech rights. How can the tech companies get away with violating the Constitution like this? Am I missing something?
A: The tech companies have not violated the Constitution. By removing users from their platforms, social media companies do not deny people the right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment.
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech from government censorship, not the actions of private businesses. The Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, states in part: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
Actions by private businesses to restrict speech do not violate the Constitution. An employer, for instance, can fire a worker who disagrees with its policies, or who espouses views even outside of work that are inconsistent with the employers image, policies or stated values. Businesses and individuals can choose not to associate with views with which they disagree and, in fact, the right not to speak, also is indirectly protected by the First Amendment.
The government cannot control what newspapers publish. And states cannot require workers to pay union dues that support political views with which they disagree.
Even where government action is involved, the right to speak ones mind is not unfettered. The government can place reasonable restrictions on the time, place or manner of speech as long as the restrictions are not related to the content of the speech. Use of loudspeakers at night in a residential neighborhood can be prohibited, for example, as could a gathering that blocks traffic, or a protest that prevents people from accessing medical facilities.
Speech that incites imminent unlawful action can be prohibited, as can obscenity, child pornography, defamation and libel and threats, which have been defined as a statement which ... a reasonable person would foresee would be interpreted ... as a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm. Planned Parenthood v American Coalition of Life Activists(9th Circuit, 2002).
Trump is not the only one accusing social media giants of violating the First Amendment by kicking some right-wing and pro-Trump voices off their platforms. The presidents son, Donald Jr., claimed on Twitter, ironically that Free speech no longer exists in America. Sen. Josh Hawley, who was the first senator to object to the certification of Joe Bidens victory and who went through with his objection after the riot, claimed his rights were trampled when Simon & Schuster decided not to publish his book on big tech.
Trump, Donald Jr., and Hawley especially Hawley, an Ivy League-educated lawyer should, and do, know better. Twitter and Facebook do not violate their users free speech rights by suspending the accounts of people who violate the companies' terms of service, and a publisher is not required to publish a book by an author it may hold in contempt.
But the inaccurate description of the First Amendment disseminated by both Trump Jr. and Hawley is a misinterpretation shared by a majority of Americans. A 2019 survey by the Freedom Forum, a nonprofit dedicated to raising awareness of First Amendment, found that 65 percentof respondents believed wrongly that banning users on social media because of the content of their posts was a First Amendment violation.
Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter enjoy protections not provided newspapers or other publishers. Thanks to a 1996 law, social media platforms unlike publishers can place some restrictions on the content disseminated without becoming civilly liable for the content. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows social media to place good faith restrictions on material the provider considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.
Perhaps ironically, the purpose of the law was to protect a medium that offers a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
Both Facebook and Twitter, include adherence to standards as a condition for use of the free services. Facebook, for example, prohibits expression that threatens people or has the potential to intimidate exclude or silence. Twitternot only bans hateful conduct, but also explicitly prohibits the use of misleading information about COVID-19, violent threats and the glorification of violence.
Both companies contain exceptions to their policies for speech that is viewed as being in the public interest, although Twitter may flag some tweets. Twitter notes it is likely to remove a tweet if it includes a declarative call to action that could harm a specific or individual group, or shares information or engages in behavior that could directly interfere with an individuals exercise of their fundamental rights.
Trumps calls to overturn the results of the 2020 election which would have disenfranchised the roughly 81 million people who voted for Biden in favor of roughly 74 million who voted for Trump was determined to be a violation of Twitter and Facebook policies. While Facebook allowed the president to continue to make unsupported claims about the legality of the November election as being in the public interest, Twitter increasingly flagged the claims as inaccurate.
After Trumps Jan. 6 rally, which preceded the insurrection and assault on the Capitol building, both platforms decided to suspend Trumps accounts. Twitter statedthat the context around his tweets, and the way they were being received and interpreted on and off Twitter, demonstrated a risk of further incitement of violence.
While neither social media giant violated the free speech rights of Trump nor Hawley, there is increasing concern about the power of social mediato control the information Americans access, by suspending certain accounts as in the case of the president or by amplifying extreme opinions, or by limiting our exposure to information that appeals to and reinforces our existing views.
In the case of Trump, few individuals, if any, enjoy a wider platform from which to exercise the right to freedom of expression. The office of the President of the United States is arguably the largest platform in the world dwarfing even social media giants.
Even without Twitter, Trump has no difficulty presenting his views to the nation: Few news organizations will skip a press conference called by the president of the United States, and coverage of such events is customarily disseminated throughout the globe.
Trump, however, is not alone in calling for greater control over social media. Both Trump and Biden, for different reasons, have called for a repeal of Section 230, which legally protects social media companies from liability from content posted by users.
Attorney Daniel A. Gwinns Troy practice focuses on employment law, civil rights litigation, probate, and trusts and estates. Contact him with your legal questions at email@example.com or visit the website at gwinnlegal.com. Ask the Lawyer is informational only and should not be considered legal advice.
- Trump Impeachment Trial And The 1st Amendment Debate : Trump Impeachment Trial: Live Updates - NPR - February 14th, 2021
- Trumps claim impeachment violates the 1st Amendment and Brandenburg v. Ohio, explained - Vox.com - February 14th, 2021
- WATCH: Trump not protected by First Amendment for inciting insurrection, Rep. Raskin says - PBS NewsHour - February 14th, 2021
- The Insurrection, Police Accountability, and the First Amendment - brennancenter.org - February 14th, 2021
- Opinion: Guns shouldn't trump the First Amendment - The Missouri Times - February 14th, 2021
- Comment: Trump's lawyers have it wrong on First Amendment, too | HeraldNet.com - The Daily Herald - February 14th, 2021
- Highlights of Day 4 of the Trump Impeachment Trial - The New York Times - February 14th, 2021
- The Atlantic The Great Free-Speech Reversal - The Atlantic - January 29th, 2021
- First Ammendment Rights What Is the First Ammendment? - Reader's Digest - January 29th, 2021
- [OPINION] Does the First Amendment apply to what you post on social media? - Asian Journal News - January 29th, 2021
- Amanda Gorman's lyrical promise of the First Amendment - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era - January 29th, 2021
- Oh, so you really want me to talk about the First Amendment, eh? (JEFF EDELSTEIN COLUMN) - The Trentonian - January 29th, 2021
- Other View: First Amendment doesn't apply to Twitter, Facebook - Duluth News Tribune - January 29th, 2021
- Let's clear up needless confusion about the First Amendment - Oskaloosa Herald - January 29th, 2021
- Letter: Inauguration, and the First Amendment | Letters to the Editor | tucson.com - Arizona Daily Star - January 29th, 2021
- Might Federal Preemption of Speech-Protective State Laws Violate the First Amendment? - Reason - January 29th, 2021
- The Buckeye Institute Files First Amendment Case on Behalf of Ohio Guidance Counselor - Buckeye Institute - January 29th, 2021
- The First Amendment won't save Trump - Salon - January 29th, 2021
- Absolute Freedom to Tweet? Employers (and the NLRA) May Have Something to Say About It - JD Supra - January 29th, 2021
- I'm a First Amendment scholar and I think Big Tech should be left alone - The Conversation US - January 23rd, 2021
- Letter to the editor: Put the First Amendment first - Daily Mississippian - January 23rd, 2021
- Napolitano: Does the First Amendment restrain Big Tech? - Daily Herald - January 23rd, 2021
- Do Critics of Police Have the First Amendment Procedural Protections That Nazis Get? - Reason - January 23rd, 2021
- Ask the expert: The First Amendment and free speech - MSUToday - January 23rd, 2021
- Letter: To everyone, including friends and family members, who feel First Amendment rights are being denied - Sumter Item - January 23rd, 2021
- Knight Institute Urges Supreme Court To Preserve Ruling That Trump Violated First Amendment 01/25/2021 - MediaPost Communications - January 23rd, 2021
- Do Social Media Companies Have Too Much Power Over The First Amendment? - WFAE - January 23rd, 2021
- What the First Amendment Really Says About Whether Trump Incited the Capitol Riot - Slate - January 23rd, 2021
- Permit Requirements for Filming in National Parks Violate First Amendment - Reason - January 23rd, 2021
- Does the First Amendment protect you on social media? - RADIO.COM - January 23rd, 2021
- Simpson sues Board of Elections, claims dismissal violated First Amendment rights - Greensboro News & Record - January 23rd, 2021
- What does the day after Section 230 reform look like? - Brookings Institution - January 23rd, 2021
- Twitter and Facebook Just Proved That Deplatforming Works - The Nation - January 23rd, 2021
- Afternoon Briefs: SCOTUS will consider cheerleader's First Amendment case; former AG dies at 88 - ABA Journal - January 5th, 2021
- No Blanket Protection for Internet Platforms - The Wall Street Journal - January 5th, 2021
- Walsh Vetoes Ordinance That Would Restrict Police Use Of Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets - WBUR - January 5th, 2021
- Happy new and old year: 2020 just won't go away when it comes to first amendment issues in 2021 - Hopkinsville Kentucky New Era - January 5th, 2021
- Far-Right VA State Senator Claims huge victory for the First Amendment and for open access to government for all Virginians. Except That the Court... - January 5th, 2021
- Will You Save Money On Hospital Bills With New Price Transparency Rule? : Shots - Health News - NPR - January 5th, 2021
- "I am asking Washingtonians and those who live in the region to stay out of the downtown area on Tuesday and Wednesday and not to engage with... - January 5th, 2021
- Julian Assange Extradition to U.S. Blocked Over Mental Health Concerns - The New York Times - January 5th, 2021
- The First Amendment is under siege and most Americans know it - The Central New York Business Journal - December 30th, 2020
- First Circuit Creates Exception To Massachusetts Wiretap Statute Based On First Amendment Rights, Allows Citizens And Press To Record Police Activity... - December 30th, 2020
- First Circuit Appeals Court Reaffirms Its 2011 Decision: The First Amendment Protects The Recording Of Cops - Techdirt - December 30th, 2020
- New Year's Eve In The Year Of The Coronavirus - The Rhino Times of Greensboro - The Rhino TImes - December 30th, 2020
- On Religion: COVID was year's top religion story. But which story? - Tahlequah Daily Press - December 30th, 2020
- How Lin Wood Became a Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theorist - The New York Times - December 30th, 2020
- The Year That Changed the Internet - The Atlantic - December 30th, 2020
- Section 230 Isn't A Subsidy; It's A Rule Of Civil Procedure - Techdirt - December 30th, 2020
- 7 Recommendations for the New Year - Contracting Business - December 30th, 2020
- Smith: Small steps to bring hope and wonder - The Register-Guard - December 30th, 2020
- Court Enjoins Enforcement of Combatting Race and Sex Stereotyping Executive Order for Federal Contractors and Grantees - JD Supra - December 30th, 2020
- COOMBES: Put the First Amendment first - University of Virginia The Cavalier Daily - October 12th, 2020
- Did the First Amendment to the Constitution lay the foundation for an authoritarian state? - The Indian Express - October 12th, 2020
- First Amendment Right to Record Child-Protection Visit to Your Home - Reason - October 12th, 2020
- First Amendment scholars weigh in on legality of Terminal Tower Biden Harris light display - cleveland.com - October 12th, 2020
- Use of Trademarks in Creative Works & Lanham Act Liability - The National Law Review - October 12th, 2020
- 'Introduction to the First Amendment Museum' topic of presentation - Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel - October 12th, 2020
- Judge amy coney barrett and the First Amendment - Lexology - October 12th, 2020
- A vote for Trump is a vote against the First Amendment - Poughkeepsie Journal - October 12th, 2020
- Trump Admin. Says First Amendment Is Moot In WeChat Case - Law360 - October 12th, 2020
- You Shouldn't Get Sued for Petitioning the Government - Cato Institute - October 12th, 2020
- Reporters Committee welcomes Inasmuch Foundation Legal Fellow - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - October 12th, 2020
- FIRST 5: Trump and COVID-19 -- How 'free' are/should we be? - Salina Post - October 12th, 2020
- Candidates and voters alike suffer as yard signs are targeted for theft and vandalism - Burlington Hawk Eye - October 12th, 2020
- Letters to the Editor: The First Amendment in Rio Rancho - Albuquerque Journal - September 21st, 2020
- Texas A&M University Introduces First Amendment Website - Texas A&M University Today - September 21st, 2020
- Attorney on first amendment rights of protesters: The government must protect these rights - RochesterFirst - September 21st, 2020
- Polk County GOP chairperson gathering signatures in support of a Second Amendment Designated County - Grand Forks Herald - September 21st, 2020
- Health officials urge people who attended Trump rally on Saturday to get tested for coronavirus - The Fayetteville Observer - September 21st, 2020
- Potsdam 'toilet gardens' will stay, for now, as federal judge grants injunction in toilet case - NNY360 - September 21st, 2020
- This Week at The Ninth: Informational Injury and Union Dues - JD Supra - September 21st, 2020
- Even with a Recent Lag, Special Interest PACs Enjoy Big Fundraising Edge Over Parties - InsiderNJ - September 21st, 2020
- Readers respond: Racists coming out of the woodwork - oregonlive.com - September 21st, 2020
- WeChat and TikTok Sanctions Not to Came Into Effect Yesterday - JD Supra - September 21st, 2020
- The Oklahoma Meat Consumer Protection Act is Meat Lobby's Response to the Increased Consumer Demand for Plant-Based Options - vegconomist - the vegan... - September 21st, 2020
- Army esports team denies accusations of violating First Amendment, offering fake giveaways - ArmyTimes.com - July 21st, 2020
- FIRST FIVE: Fighting over the meaning of First Amendment freedoms - hays Post - July 21st, 2020
- My View: In Provincetown, strange views of the First Amendment - Wicked Local Provincetown - July 21st, 2020
- John Bolton Gambles That Constitution Will Save Profits on Book That Was Embarrassing to the President - Law & Crime - July 21st, 2020