Social Media Giants Shouldn’t Be Arbiters Of Appropriate Speech

Social Media Giants Shouldn’t Be Arbiters Of Appropriate Speech

Not every defense of free expression is predicated on the Constitution. Sometimes it’s about the principle.
David Harsanyi
By

Of course sites like Facebook, Apple, and YouTube are free to ban conspiracy mongers like Alex Jones from their platforms. They have a right to dictate the contours of permissible speech on their sites, and to enforce those standards either dutifully or hypocritically or ideologically or using any method they see fit. No one seriously disputes this.

Then again, Twitter also has a right, as a private entity, to take a stand, and, as the company’s CEO Jack Dorsey explains it, dispassionately allow free exchanges of ideas—even the ugly ones Infowars offers—as long as users don’t break the company’s rules. Yet, here we are, watching a number of journalists—supposed sentinels of free expression—demanding that billionaire CEOs start policing speech that makes them uncomfortable.

Jones, who has made numerous hateful, and reckless remarks, should make any reasonable person uncomfortable. In this regard, though, he’s certainly not alone. And if Facebook is now guaranteeing a platform free of unpleasant voices who break their vague terms of service, they have lots of work ahead.

To some extent, I can understand how frustrating it is watching a bigoted conspiracy theorist who has destroyed lives be provided a voice on a large media platform. After all, I’ve been trying to ignore Al Sharpton’s cable show for years. Yet if I were running a social media platform, I’d like to think I would allow nearly anyone— minus those who threaten violence or otherwise break the law—speak. It’s not as if users wouldn’t possess a block button. I can’t recall a single time in my decade using social media ever opening an Infowars link. I doubt most of you have either.  Even if you did, you wouldn’t melt. They’re just words.

And while the ejection of Jones isn’t the end of the world, and it doesn’t necessarily portend a mass expulsion of less extreme  voices, let’s stop acting like conservatives are foolish for harboring some concerns about the incrementalist goals of would-be liberal censors.

Every day, contemporary liberals run around accusing Trump supporters of being in league with white supremacists and social conservatives of being unrepentant bigots. Republicans are regularly charged with propagating fascist views or attempting to literally murder Americans.

It’s implausible to imagine a future where liberal activists don’t demand Republican groups be deplatformed. We already see liberal groups targeting advertisers of popular conservative radio hosts and trying to have National Rifle Association, an organization regularly compared to terrorists, thrown off platforms on moral grounds. The slippery slope already exists.

Take a recent Vox video ostensibly exploring the “tough debate about censorship and free speech” on the Internet. “It’s not just Alex Jones,” says Vox. Among some of the offensive (in reality, some of it is merely provocative) comments on immigration and Islam offered by, as Vox labels them, “YouTube’s most extreme creators,” we see Turning Point USA’s Candace Owens saying, “No one likes feminism, that’s what happened, Hillary!”

You might find her remark tendentious or simplistic, but under no reasonable interpretation can it be described as “extreme.” Yet conflating partisan Republican positions with hate speech or intolerable ideas has been a longstanding strategy on the Left in its efforts to stigmatize views. It’s liberals who often make little distinction between Infowars and mainstream conservatives. And it’s conservatives who need to worry.

People struggle—or, more likely, pretend to struggle—to make a distinction between defending the value of free expression and defending those who use it. Arguing that it’s preferable to err on the side of more speech on a giant user-generated website doesn’t make you an ally of Jones any more than defending the right of The New York Times editorial board to hire Sarah Jeong makes you a small-minded racist. What it might mean, though, is that you’re more troubled by the prospects of authoritarian ideologues who believe speech is tantamount to “terrorism” attempting to dictate what our discourse looks like than you are about some media-generated panic about Jones.

Now, it’s true that if you don’t like the standards that social media sites have instituted, or you don’t like the users who populate the place, you’re free to leave and find another outlet to amplify your thoughts. There’s no God-given right to be on Facebook or Twitter.  But once social media sites take on the responsibility of policing speech, they are transforming themselves into adjudicators of what ideas are tolerable on a purportedly open platform.

That’s a precarious position moving forward. Infowars was an easy target. Others will surely be more complicated.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.