This is in response to the ongoing debate around the supposed censorship of right-wing voices through banning of certain Twitter accounts and other private media platforms. Having seen a variety of arguments, I noticed that there may be a couple of points being missed.
However, as a foundation for my discussion I do want to touch on a couple of points that I think must continually be repeated when this topic comes up:
- A private entity (like Twitter) has no obligation to publish anyone’s content. If they elect not to, this is NOT censorship, nor is it a violation of the First Amendment.
- If society allows for anyone to say anything without consequences (complete tolerance for all speech) then those opposed to civil society will use it as a way to destroy civil society. This is why someone cannot cry ‘fire’ in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
So, with those two presumptions noted, I turn to what I think might be missing in some of these conversations.
Firstly, one of the big challenge the United States has, and will have regardless of what other changes occur in the future is the absolutism people seem to have embedded when it comes to the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights. Despite the left/right split in the absolutism behind the first and second amendment, both are taken to extremes by some of their supporters.
In both cases courts and legislation have constrained some of the most radical applications (for instance, disallowing speech that is meant to incite immediate violence, or banning the private ownership of heavy weapons) but unlike many other western democracies, the US has been unwilling to put constraints on these two ‘rights’ that can be applied more broadly—with laws against hate speech for instance.
Canada for example, also enshrines free expression as one of the rights guaranteed in its constitution, but also had strong hate speech exceptions which disallow Neo-Nazi’s from publish antisemitic content for public consumption.
Without this sort of exception (which I expect would be impossible to implement without a constitutional revision which contains its own risks) the civil society in the US is left with fewer tools to legally fight against the increasing fascist propaganda being put out by the right. It is an unfortunate situation which will make shutting down the fascists more difficult.
It does have one benefit—because of their absolutist beliefs and faith that there are few legal ways they can be shut down as long as they don’t incite immediate violence such right-wing propagandists are likely to be bold enough that finding them will not be a problem—shutting them down may need to be done through boycotts and other means however.
The second item I’ve noticed, is that the people who are calling Twitter (and other’s) moves to de-platform those most likely ti incite violence and insurrection censorship and call for MORE free speech and free expression. They are missing out that such editorialization is an exercise in free expression by the company. While social media companies are legally treated far different than a newspaper or news program on television (an argument I won’t rehash here), de-platforming can be seen as akin to the editorialization function of other more traditional media outlets. Even so, some might still cry censorship in the cases where editors cut certain content.
But in the modern media landscape, there is nothing to stop any given person from publishing their ideas, views, ideology or content—in fact the hurdles for a private citizen to do so have never been lower; they have been falling since the first printing press was used to mass print the bible.
Everyone in the Unites States has the right—and thus the ability—to say what they want(so long as it falls outside the legislated exceptions to the 1st Amendment); they can scream it at the top of their lungs if they like. But there is no similar guarantee that that content will be distributed for free—if you want distribution you must be willing to invest in such infrastructure yourself—or live with the fact that not every (or any) distribution channel will accept and promote your expression.
Ultimately, you cannot claim to support free expression if you are not willing to allow private entities of all sorts to exercise their own free expression—not that such hypocrisy is unfamiliar to many of those decrying de-platforming as censorship.
Of course all the above is my own opinion on the matter at hand—feel free to take or leave it as you will. And while I hope I didn’t say anything bannable by DailyKos staff, I do recognize that they have every right to elect not to distribute my content if they so choose to.
So to those who keep DK up and running, a hearty thanks for providing me a free platform I can spread my personal views on (within limits)