Social media has become a part of life for nearly every person. Many Americans rely on well-known sites like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok for news, entertainment, and more.
In 2021, President Donald Trump was banned from Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Pinterest. Some people argued that removing Trump from those sites was a form of censorship and a violation of the First Amendment. Many others believed Trump posted dangerous content that incited violence.
The debate quickly became political, and people focused only on Trump’s case. The right fought the left without pausing to consider the greater questions at stake. What is censorship? Who has the right to decide if and who’s speech should be regulated or removed from online platforms? Solving fundamental democratic issues using collaboration should have been the first priority, yet both sides of the political spectrum polarized Trump’s controversy and used it as ammunition in their war.
I decided to look deeper into the definition of censorship, where the lines of free speech are drawn, and who gets to draw them on social media sites.
The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” However, social media companies are privately owned. They are not forced to abide by the First Amendment, and they have the power to remove posts and ban users. Each social media company makes its own rules about what to censor. The freedom forum briefly explains restrictions on four different types of speech: hate, obscenity, misinformation, and harassment. Policies on all of these types of speech are interesting to look at, but I want to concentrate on misinformation and hate speech, both of which were cited as reasons for removing President Trump from social media.
The First Amendment protects spoken and written misinformation, but it allows false statements that damage another person’s reputation to be challenged in court as defamation.
Social media sites, on the other hand, have inconsistent restrictions when misinformation is identified. For example, Instagram has “no policy” regarding the removal of false facts. They do not take down posts or comments that provide inaccurate or exaggerated information. Facebook does not remove fake news, but it claims to use algorithms to reduce its visibility. Beginning in 2020, Facebook removed political ads the week before election day on the grounds that they were a form of misinformation that could influence elections.
Next, I want to draw attention to social media policies regarding hate speech. According to the freedom forum, “The First Amendment protects hate speech from government censorship unless that speech incites or is likely to incite imminent lawless action.” However, common social media sites like Snapchat and Twitter have policies prohibiting specific hate speech, namely insults based on race or national origin. Facebook and Instagram both list hate speech as “forbidden” unless it is shared to spread awareness. In proclaimed hate speech, similar to proclaimed “misinformation,” social media sites censor speech that is technically protected from government censorship.
It is important to recognize that speech on social media is more tightly restricted than we know. When relying on large platforms for news or important information, consumers must recognize that media sites are private companies and can have different rules than the government. Being aware of the rules of a certain platform before consuming its information allows readers to understand what views or information could be missing from the news they read.
In addition to inconsistencies between sites, social media platforms are also vague when they list their rules. Trump’s removal was never justified with a specific post tied to a specific policy, and media companies simply argued that he violated their rules. Can his removal be considered unjust censorship, or was he a threat to the safety of the general population? Who made the decision to remove him, and who was there to “check” his choice? Do users of social media accept the condition that they may be banned when they post their opinions?
In a Wall Street Journal opinion post, John Eads mentioned that Facebook’s criteria for hate speech is vague and loosely defined. The company reserves the right to remove speech it feels is hateful. That begs the question: who gets to decide what is hate speech? I visited Facebook’s website to see, and all I found was that the company removes content it finds in “violation of community standards,” and bans accounts that infringe repeatedly on those standards. I’m curious how Facebook finds violations, and I don’t think it’s realistic to assume that the company looks at every post that is reported. Is there some kind of Artificial Intelligence that decides what gets removed? How is that managed?
In the same Wall Street Journal forum, Christina Paule brought up the fact that “there is no appealing Facebook’s decisions.” Although Trump was able to use his media presence to publicly criticize Facebook’s ban of his account and claim it was unjust, many Americans are not able to do so. Is the removal of posts or accounts from online sources a form of censorship that prevents people from expressing themselves? Is the removal of posts and users necessary to protect the general population? When Trump was banned from social media, he had other options to express his opinions, like Fox News and a personal blog. However, the American Civil Liberties Union raises an excellent point: if large companies ban the speech of less prominent people, they “could effectively silence them.”
Overall, there are a lot more questions than answers when it comes to social media and censorship. Trump’s case in 2021 turned into a Democrat-Republican debate, rather than a debate of liberty and democracy. When social media is used to consume news or to spread political opinions, it must be done with caution. As private media sources continue to rise in popularity, we must answer the hard questions. Does the government have the right to regulate speech on private platforms? Should private companies have the power to remove posts? Can censorship even occur on private platforms, or is restriction only called “censorship” when the government takes away a person’s freedom of speech? Trump’s case was just one highly visible example of social media censorship and the inconsistent policies on content removal. Many more people could have been silenced, and no one would know.
Sources
https://www.freedomforum.org/free-expression-on-social-media/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-censorship-and-political-speech-11574097326