Parler, the free-speech competitor of Twitter, is due to go down this evening as a result of Amazon’s decision to drop them as a client of their Amazon Web Services (AWS). Amazon’s reasoning: “…a steady increase in this violent content on your website, all of which violates our terms.” I’ve discussed the egregious nature of Amazon’s conduct on this matter in another article so I won’t cover it again here. But silencing those with whom you disagree – no matter the level of disagreement or how they express it – is not the answer. In addition, I am particularly concerned when those who are silenced are on the opposite end of the political spectrum from those performing the silencing.
It has always been the goal of political despots to silence their opposition, and when calls for the silencing of some have a one-sided source we are right to question their motives. This is of particular importance when those affecting the silencing are under the thumb of the government. In this case Apple, Google and Amazon are or have been the subject of antitrust investigations. This begs the question: is the silencing an act by private companies, or private companies fearful of their government? Are they acting on their own behalf, or on the behalf of the government in hopes of currying favor in upcoming legal or regulatory actions? Do you all realize the significance of the latter case?
In any event, the suppression of opposition speech is not the answer to the problem of violent online content cited by Amazon. The purpose of free speech is so opposition voices can be heard, thus permitting differing opinions to be tempered by discussion. Yes, we will always have extremists – but they are not kept in check by isolation. They are instead kept in check by popular opinion, by those who offer their own dissenting viewpoint and argue the better position. Attempting to silence the voice of opposition, forcing it into dark alleys and private chat rooms, will only allow it to fester unchallenged.
So what then is the answer to violent speech on social media? It’s the same solution applied to any other violent speech. If the speech in question rises to the level of criminal activity – for instance, if it makes or incites direct threats to people or property, or incites riots in general – then law enforcement should take whatever action is allowed under the law. If the speech is otherwise allowed under the 1st Amendment and the laws of our country then it should be left alone for discussion among the people. Note that it does not matter whether or not you think the speech is appropriate; your opinion does not negate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It is the law that determines whether or not a particular level of expression is outside the bounds of protected speech, not your sensibilities.
To implement this solution we only need to identify the speakers so that law enforcement can track down those whose speech violates the law. This identification should be kept private rather than public; people should be allowed to retain their anonymity online. Without such anonymity speech could be suppressed over fear of illegal retaliation or harassment, which cannot be tolerated in a free society (Remember Hitler’s “brownshirts”, who harassed and bullied their opposition into silence?). But social media sites should have true and correct information on their users so that – under court-issued warrant – the speakers can be identified when they break the law. This is already the norm with most social media sites; virtually all have some sort of user authentication process sufficient to identify the user (if not, they could always ask the great overseer, Google, to identify them…). However, all speech that falls under the category of legal should be allowed – whether or not it offends your sensibilities. There is no right under the Constitution or the laws of this nation to not be offended by the thoughts, ideas or speech of others.
It should be up to the law whether or not a particular level of speech is heard. From there it is the people’s decision whether or not to listen. But under no circumstances should the decision with respect to what we hear be left to companies with ulterior or political motives, particularly those who may be acting as pawns on behalf of the government.
Democracy may die in darkness, but liberty perishes in silence.