How Social Media Stifles Free Speech
How Social Media Stifles Free Speech
by Jeff Trag, Gatestone Institute, July 13, 2017
One of the greatest contemporary battles for individual liberty and freedom of the press is being conducted in cyber space.
Today, political, journalistic and corporate elites are in the process of trying to control, and even rewrite, "story lines" of history and current events with which they might disagree, and that they see slipping through their fingers.
It is a form of censorship akin to banning the printing press or preventing open debate in the literal and proverbial public square.
Facebook, for example, also often permits real hate speech while banning websites that expose this hate speech.
There are, however, constitutional and legal measures that can and should be taken to protect Americans from having their right to express themselves as they wish – without causing harm to public safety or engaging in illegal activity -- violated every time they log in to their social media accounts.
New laws need to be codified to prevent what have become virtual utilities such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube from steering debate in a particular ideological direction.
One argument against holding these social media giants accountable is that they are private companies, and that consumers can simply stop using them.
This claim is disingenuous, however: these companies have an effective monopoly on expression in the international public sphere. Although people are ostensibly free not to use Facebook or Twitter, there are no other comparable alternative platforms at their disposal.
Even more problematic is that those platforms are free to delete the pages and posts of users they deem to have violated whatever they decide are "community standards." This includes judging content supportive of, for example, restricting migration in Europe.
No one should own the public square, least of all social media, which is merely the vehicle for transporting members of that public to that square. Any attempt by social media companies to curtail the people's right to access lawful information should be penalized.
Congress, therefore, might pass legislation specifically adapted to this new arena.
Ultimately, the only way to keep the United States safe is by protecting its citizens' ability to discuss ideas without fear. If we lose our freedom of expression on the internet, we lose our democracy.
As U.S. founding father Thomas Jefferson said of the First Amendment: "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."
Jeff Trag is based in Tlaquepaque, Jalisco, Mexico.
Tags
Who is online
39 visitors
When Facebook was still in its early days I became a member, but since that time I realized what a mistake I had made. By the time I came to that realization China had blocked all access to Facebook, and I am unable to delete my membership, although I wish I coiuld. At first I was disappointed that China had blocked it, but now, due to the manner with which Facebook is being managed (and I'm thinking of only one of the things that bothers me about it now; the censorship where Zuckerberg made a deal with Merkel) besides having my name and some personal information in the hands of Zuckerberg and his cronies, I think China did the right thing - but only specifically about Facebook. I'm still very unhappy about not being able to access YouTube.
I wonder how many NT members use FaceBook and find it to be a benefit.
I use it and find it to be a benefit but it has become extremely intrusive. Its also disturbing to me that there are more and more websites that demand you to log in to their sites via your FB account.
FB is a sprawling, octopus-like sponge that wants to soak up all your personal info. Creepy.
I too was one of the first facebookers. My younger cousins in London, got me to sign up as a way of sharing family pictures and quick notes to one another. What I actually hate about it, is that it went political. I used to go there to get away from politics, now I am reading my friends' and family's views and many times I find it upsetting.
So the fact that they are censoring.. just another reason to dislike it. I still use it for the reasons I stated. What I don't understand are those who left NV and NT because they hate politics but then go there and talk politics. What's up with that?
I don't use it at all. I think that I have an account from a long while back.
Red does to communicate with her friends and the kids.
Isn't email good enough to communicate? At least it's private.