Those losing Twitter aren’t being denied free speech
The recent conservative social media upheaval has confused a lot of people on the topic of free speech and First Amendment rights. And Republicans have shamefully been on the wrong side of it.
As you know, President Donald Trump was booted off Twitter, Facebook and almost all other mainstream social media sites. At least 70,000 individuals in all were booted off these sites for a variety of reasons, most of which have involved spreading fake news about the 2020 Election, spreading nonsense QAnon conspiracy theories, or inciting the shameful attempt at a coup d’etat on Jan. 6.
Beyond the Twitter and Facebook bannings, entire sites have been deplat-formed. Parler, the vile and unhinged social media echo chamber for Trump fans, was booted off of their webservers by Amazon for becoming a rotting cesspool of violent threats against government officials and its use as a coordinating tool during the failed coup. Since Parler has not been able to find another company to host them, Parler is currently dead as a doornail.
Not that anybody will miss it. Trump fans, the same people who have criticized the perceived fetishization of victimhood on the left, have cast themselves as victims. They believe, some of them earnestly, that their First Amendment rights are being violated by being denied the use of these platforms.
Don’t believe this for a second. The First Amendment 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.”
A basic understanding of the amendment shows the flaw in this argument. Getting banned from social media cannot be a violation of First Amendment rights because government did not abridge their rights; a private company did.
You have the constitutional right to be a jerk on the internet. But companies are under no legal obligation to allow you to be a jerk on their platform built with their money. This is especially true considering the bonkers things said by some of these keyboard warriors hiding being fake names and saying things they would never have the guts to say in person.
Besides, everybody agrees to terms of service when signing up for these services. Those govern what you can and can’t do on any platform. When users violate those terms, they violate their agreement. The provider owes them nothing.
(Liberals are bad at free speech, too; many of the same people cheering on Trumpist deplatforming also cheer on when attempts are made to force businesses and employees to participate in activities that are against their religion.)
Think of it this way; I am allowed to write this column in this paper every two weeks. I am afforded this opportunity because our editor thinks I have something interesting to say. I continue to be published because readers think I have something interesting to say and my writing provides value to the paper. If this stopped for any legitimate reason, I would not have legal recourse against the paper on any constitutional grounds. Me not having a column in a newspaper owned by a private company does not violate anybody’s constitutional rights.
Just because anybody can create a Twitter or Facebook account for free does not change the basic legal calculus on this.
I’m willing to entertain different viewpoints as to who should and should not be banned. But it’s not a free speech issue and not a violation of anybody’s constitutional rights.
Brian Griffiths is the publisher of The Duckpin, available for free at TheDuckpin.com, and host of The Duckpin Podcast, available on YouTube and wherever podcasts are available. He can be reached via email at brian.griffiths.media@gmail.com, on Twitter @BrianGriffiths, or on Facebook at facebook.com/briangriffithsmd.