Speaking with Forked Tongues
Jonah Goldberg in his most recent piece says, “I am … somewhat closer to being a First Amendment absolutist.” He goes on to draw a distinction between censorship by government, to which the First Amendment applies, and within private forums operated by private parties, to which the First Amendment would not apply. However, Goldberg is a little too quick to excuse and accept the censorship undertaken by Social Media companies, which for better or worse have become ubiquitous in our daily lives.
Regardless of whether the First Amendment applies, one should be free to point out inconsistency and hypocrisy in the ways that even “private” parties address issues of speech. Social Media companies have allowed previous comments by government officials, irate individuals, and religious extremists, which have called for violence, harm, or the complete annihilation of persons and peoples. Trump himself and Israel have been common targets of such vitriol. Nevertheless, many such persons and groups, despite routinely engaging in what is accurately described as “hate speech,” remain active on the various platforms even today.
While rarely quoting the words themselves, media outlets quickly and definitively condemned Trump’s speech as “inciting a riot.” While approving of Amazon’s removal of Parler from its web services, Goldberg says, “[It] was being used by jackasses to foment violence and hatred.”
However, I do not recall the same levels of indignation and frequency of adverse comments by those same media outlets during the months of left-wing rioting in 2020. In fact, media personalities bent over backwards, with conspicuous coordination and in obvious concert, as they described repeated incidents, which were unquestionably “riots,” as “mostly peaceful protests.”
Those riots were defined and motivated by comments suck as: “F**K the Police” … “ACAB — All Cops Are Bad” … and “The Only Good Cop is a Dead One.” When those riots resulted in the deaths of not less than nineteen (19) persons, can it be said accurately of the participants that they did not “encourage violence”? When violence and destruction happened repeatedly, in locales across the country, for weeks on end, was there not “incitement to riot”?
Those statements and others just as bad were chanted repeatedly and scrawled in graffiti throughout cities from coast-to-coast. Many of those “speakers” actively participated in the ensuing riots, which included vandalism, looting, and arson. Entire city blocks we set ablaze. In addition to the deaths, the riots resulted in over $1 Billion in property damage.
One group even declared self-rule and occupied several square blocks of a major U.S. city for nearly a month (after ransacking and burning a local police precinct). Eventually, repeated acts of violence, including two (2) murders, forced government authorities to disband CHOP or CHAZ, as it was alternately called by its “citizens.”
However, there was little condemnation much less any serious effort to silence the speakers or to censor their speech. The difference is conspicuous and obvious: Media identified with the 2020 rioters, and its members supported their objectives. In contrast, a media establishment with a decidedly leftward slant vehemently dislikes Trump and is generally opposed to his objectives (and those of the GOP). Therefore, they were quick to denounce the man and his goals, as well as to silence him and others, who might think similarly.
They may be privileged to demonstrate blatant bias and to actively censor content that they do not support, but they are not privileged to do so with impunity. Those, who are disadvantaged or adversely affected by such actions, are free to seek whatever recourse may be available to them (e.g. legal, economic, etc.). Persons are also free to point out bias and inconsistency to the extent that the companies’ discretion and “rules” are not applied evenhandedly.
To the extent that Social Media companies are acting as “private parties,” as opposed to a propaganda arm of government and thus involved in state action, I agree that they are privileged to self-regulate the content of their services. However, it is worthy of note that Section 230 of the euphemistically denominated “Communications Decency Act” of 1996 exists because such providers formerly argued that they acted more like “utilities” than “publishers.”
If Social Media outlets act more like a telephone company, providing universal access without restricting users or monitoring content, then the protections of Section 230 tend to make sense. However, to the extent that companies actively manipulate, distribute, edit, and censor the information on their sites, then they act more like “(re)publishers.” As such, they should be subject to the same considerations and potential liabilities of any publisher.
If such companies are going to take it upon themselves to be “censors” (and thus thought leaders) for the nation and the world, then users should be free to point out when they are being silenced without just cause, particularly if the “rules” are applied inconsistently or in a manner, which indicates a clear bias or conflicts of interests.
If a company censors one speaker or topic, but not others, then it may be argued legitimately that the company tacitly approves, supports, and endorses any content, which is not actively edited or censored. That either means that the companies’ censors will be quite busy or those companies (along with their owners and agents) will be credited with “supporting” some rather nefarious persons and causes.
Should we trust that their decisions will be entirely objective and without even a hint of bias, or should we expect that the companies will echo the biases of their owners, promote their own interests, and pursue profit over propriety?
No person or party should be privileged to silence another based upon a qualitative opinion of the speech. Even private parties should err on the side of caution by allowing a free flow of information in the marketplace of ideas. While the First Amendment may not require that, those who favor free speech should champion that cause.
