Consequence of free speech, not trampling
The Founding Fathers didn’t tweet. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson would have been great to follow on Twitter, especially when disagreeing with each other, which was often and rancorous, but had the social media platform existed in the 18th century and suspended their accounts, neither would have claimed their First Amendment rights had been violated. Neither would have yelled their voices were being silenced or they were being censured in violation of the Constitution. They knew then what too many people today seem not to know — that the First Amendment is a restraint specifically and only on Congress from making laws that restrict freedom of expression. It’s not a say-anything-you-want, anytime-you-want, any-place-you-want free pass.
Last week, Twitter permanently suspended the account of President Donald Trump. Facebook, Instagram, Twitch and Snapchat also disabled Trump accounts. The removal of Trump from these platforms came in the aftermath of years of incendiary and false claims by Trump that culminated in his inciting a violent insurrection among his supporters, who stormed the U.S. Capitol.
Soon, many Republicans, members of Congress, and current and former members of Trump’s administration were taking to Twitter to complain about the tens of thousands of followers they’d lost. The reasons for those losses can be gleaned from Twitter’s statement to NBC News: “We’ve been clear that we will take strong enforcement action on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm, and given the renewed potential for violence surrounding this type of behavior in the coming days, we will permanently suspend accounts that are solely dedicated to sharing Qanon content.”
Qanon is a bizarre, dangerous and thoroughly discredited far-right conspiracy theory in support of Trump. Anyone bemoaning losing Qanon adherents as followers should ask themselves what is it that attracted such an element to them.
Instead, many are turning this into a First Amendment issue in which the right of conservatives to speak freely is being curtailed. Donald Trump Jr. tweeted, “We are living Orwell’s 1984. Free-speech no longer exists in America.”
Wrong. Twitter is a private platform for speech — and it has no constitutional obligation to amplify all speech.
Twitter and other social media platforms aren’t the only entities being accused of First Amendment infringements. Simon & Schuster announced it was canceling the publication of Sen. Josh Hawley’s book after the Missouri Republican became the first U.S. senator to dishonestly challenge the results of the Electoral College.
In response, Hawley called this “a direct assault on the First Amendment.” Like Trump Jr., Hawley should re-read Orwell. The Yale Law School graduate and former clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts should also take a refresher on the First Amendment, which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee anyone protection from the decision of a privately owned business to not post their tweets or publish their books. Nor does it override policies by universities, nonprofits, religious institutions or any private business that determines what is an unacceptable expression by any employee or member. It’s a protection from encroachments by Congress.
While it is true that the most vile forms of speech have to be protected to ensure true freedom of speech, it’s also true that such speech doesn’t have a right on private platforms — just as it’s also true that vile or inflammatory speech will have consequences. If you libel someone, you might get sued. If you promote baseless lies that subvert an election and threaten democracy, you might get removed from social media platforms or lose your book contract. Given Trump’s long history of disseminating hateful disinformation and now promoting the big lie about voter fraud this election, the question shouldn’t be why he was kicked off Twitter but rather, why did it take Twitter so long?