Category: Constitution

Free speech is so important to the existence of a free society that the founders of this country enshrined the right to free speech as our constitution’s 1st amendment. The 1st amendment. Need I say more…?

Unfortunately, there are some in this country who are opposed to free speech. Their opposition to free speech may be rooted in the desire/need to control the thoughts of the general public (or more likely the typical voter) for their own ends. Or perhaps their desire is to see the world work in a way that they sincerely believe is best for all. However, attempts to limit speech in the past have led to suppression of the “opposition”, with dire results. Think not? Ask any WWII survivor who witnessed the suppression of opposition speech by Hitler’s stormtroopers and brown-shirts.

There are those who would argue something different; that in fact what is allowed to be said – rather than that not said at all – is what drives negative results. I would argue otherwise, and make the claim that if other voices are heard (rather than suppressed), in the end saner voices will prevail. In any event, the dilemma in attempting the suppression of “wrong” speech (over allowing competing viewpoints to be heard) is this: who exactly gets to decide what speech is allowed?

This is the dilemma faced by the founders. In their wisdom they decided that it was better for all voices to be heard rather than to trust a government to wield such an enormous power responsibly. I wholeheartedly agree with their assessment.

This has not stopped those who wish to control speech. Realizing that the government cannot limit speech (that pesky 1st amendment again…) they have instead taken to demand (under threat of regulation) that those who hold the means to speak (i.e.: the social media providers) limit the ability to disseminate speech that “they” deem hate speech, or simply speech that is divisive (it’s not like free speech is supposed to air opposing viewpoints or anything). Don’t be fooled; it is simply an end-run around the constitution and poses the same problem as noted before: who decides what speech is allowed?

The framers of our constitution were wise but imperfect people operating in a time very different from our own. However, they made a great effort to lay down a solid foundation upon which to build a modern, successful society. This foundation is enumerated in our constitution and its amendments, and we should be very leery of any attempt by our government to circumvent the same. Don’t fall for the demands to limit some speech via threat of regulation –  it’s just an attempt to gain control over all speech.

And remember – when speech is limited, someone has to decide what is allowed. What do you think will happen when your opposition holds that power?

Yeah – that’s what I think, too.

I predicted earlier (here, here) that social media moguls would use their platforms to steer opinion by limiting speech. Here is an example where a social media company has allegedly attempted to limit speech directly associated with a political campaign. If this doesn’t raise your eyebrows, then you haven’t been paying attention.

Now, to be completely honest, I don’t particularly agree with this candidate’s views. But their views are not my concern; what is my concern is that this social media firm appears to be silencing politicians with whom it disagrees. Bear in mind that even if you do agree with this company’s alleged attempts to censor this particular political speech, keep in mind that next time it might be your opinion that is quashed.

This would not be a problem if it were not for the success of these social media platforms. They have become the de facto means of communication for so many that their importance in the communication of ideas cannot be underestimated. To be fair, the social media companies are within their rights to take such action: the 1st amendment guarantees you the right to free speech, but not a platform from which to speak. You truly only have free speech in a venue that you control. However, the use of these social media systems to disseminate opinion and information has become so ingrained in our society that I would argue that such systems are simply a service, and as such cannot discriminate based on content. Let me elaborate a bit more…

A physical media publisher seeks out those who produce works that they want to publish. They publish books/magazines/etc under their own brand label, and as such what they publish affects the opinion of that brand. Such companies should be allowed to pick and choose the authors they wish to represent. However, a simple printer does not suffer the same association with the content they print. What they print is branded by the author and their material, without regard for the printer in any way. For that reason the printer should not be allowed to refuse to print materials based on content. Just as a baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, neither should a printer be able to refuse to print invitations for such a wedding (or announcements, or photo books of wedding photos, etc.). We can have a long argument about whether or not freedom of association allows such discrimination, but for now let’s assume it does not (we’ll wait for the final court say before commenting more on this topic…).

Social media sites are nothing more that digital printers. No one associates the content of a <insert social media site name here> posting with the social media site; instead, they associate the contents only with the author. The social media site is free to post its own opinions on any number of topics (including their opposition to particular posts) and make known that these are their opinions, but Joe Blow’s post about their political beliefs are just that – their political beliefs. Only a simpleton would assume that the independent posts of an individual would represent the opinion of the social media company that hosts this site along with the sites of millions of others.

When social media platforms seek to limit particular political speech, they are interfering with our political process. We should raise our voice loudly to protest such actions whenever they occur.

In today’s digital world, free speech is largely dependent on services provided via the WWW marketplace – services such as those available through social media sites, web hosts, search engines and Internet name registrars. When those who control the ability to speak via these means put their thumbs on the scale in an effort to silence those with whom they do not agree, we should consider it an attack on free speech and act accordingly. I’ve warned about this possibility before here and here, but it seems to have reared its head on a massive scale much faster than even I thought possible.

We cannot allow this type of viewpoint discrimination and censorship to stand. Where would it stop? Today it’s so-called white supremacists; next week it might be conservatives, and the week after Republicans in general. Fifty years ago it was  Socialists; fifty more from now it might be Democrats. The point is that even if you agree with these actions today because they are taken against your enemy, one day it might be you on the other side of this debate. What would you do if it was your opinion being censored?

When social media moguls want their platforms to become the primary, necessary means of communication for the masses, their effective censorship of specific speech can be troublesome. If they want to act as political operatives and lobbyists, so be it – but then let’s regulate them as such.

(And you were worried about Russian interference in our elections? Wait till you see what a social media censorship campaign can accomplish…)