Politicians, agencies have no right to block critical social media comments
In the digital era, politicians and government agencies frequently find themselves the subject of criticism on social media. There have been concerning news stories recently of public authorities blocking users or deleting unwelcome posts, effectively silencing dissenting views in popular online forums.
This troubling trend has serious implications for the freedom of expression. Citizens should be free to criticize government authorities on social media platforms. Government conduct muzzling such criticism may well be unconstitutional.
The right to free expression is a foundational one in any liberal democracy. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the universal right to freedom of opinion and expression, which “includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Closer to home, thanks to the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians are free to peacefully express ideas and opinions that challenge government, subject only to such reasonable limits as may be justified in a free and democratic society.
Over history, the public’s right to free expression has been exercised in many different media and forums.
Social media is just the latest platform where people can exchange ideas, debate pressing social and political issues, and criticize the government.
But unlike protest marches or pamphlets, political dissent on social media can be silenced in an instant. No need for riot police or bookstore raids. All you need is the click of a button by a website administrator or Twitter account holder. This is the paradox of social media as a tool for political dissent: exercising freedom of expression is easier than ever before, but so is censorship.
Repeated examples of such censorship have been reported in recent months. South of the border, lawsuits have been filed against U.S. President Donald Trump and two Republican governors claiming they violated the First Amendment rights of individuals they blocked from accessing their official social media accounts.
Here in Canada, there is a growing list of informal complaints by individuals who have been blocked from seeing or communicating on politicians’ official social media accounts — including the official account of at least one federal cabinet minister.
And in a story reported earlier this month, the Canadian Transportation Agency repeatedly removed a negative comment posted on the agency’s Facebook page by an airline passenger-rights activist. Despite requests, the agency has apparently failed to explain what, if anything, is “unproven or inaccurate” about the post.
This kind of conduct may violate the charter right to free expression.
Political expression — particularly on government property — lies at the heart of that right and is deserving of the utmost protection. As former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé once wrote, “The liberty to comment on and criticize existing institutions and structures is an indispensable component of a ‘free and democratic society.’ It is imperative for such societies to benefit from a multiplicity of viewpoints which can find fertile sustenance through various media of communication.”
Government agencies that remove negative Facebook comments, or Parliamentarians who block critical Twitter followers on their official accounts, are state actors interfering with the constitutionally protected right of constituents to voice opinions on social and political issues in the online equivalent of government property.
Of course, no right is absolute. The charter accepts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. Before the digital era, such limits were recognized where necessary to maintain law and order, combat hate speech, preserve an individual’s reputation against defamation, or for other pressing and substantial concerns.
These same concerns may be legitimate reasons for a government agency or politician to suppress expressive activity online. Indeed, social media can be a breeding ground for racism, harassment, defamation and other vile speech that does little to contribute to the marketplace of ideas and state actors might properly block such communications without breaching the charter.
But let’s be clear: it is the charter, and the framework developed by courts to interpret and apply the charter, that must govern. The internet is not a charter-free zone where state actors are free to stifle critical or unpopular speech simply because they have readily available tools to do so.