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
Awesome post, Mara! Trump’s ban from social media is a great situation to discuss when related to politics in the media. I completely agree with the point that there are many instances where people are banned from social media that are not seen or publicized like Trump’s. The situation regarding Trump was just watched by the public as it played out. Privately owned social media sites maintain the right to remove any users from their ability to post, however their attention was most likely brought to Trump because of his presence. There are many people who use similar hate speech and are most likely not noticed.
I also think it’s important that you pointed out and researched the true definition of ‘censorship’. Understanding the line between what censorship is and how it relates to the First Amendment plays a huge role in this situation. I think understanding the First Amendment’s protection over hate speech has been confused throughout the situation of Trump’s social media ban. The First Amendment itself protects hate speech that isn’t harmful, however, like you said, social media sites that are privately owned are allowed to remove anyone that uses hate speech on their sites. The line where the the First Amendment ends and social media policies begins is confusing and not understood by many people who were watching the situation unfold. I think it’s great that you took the time to become educated (and educate us) about the details that the public didn’t really understand while watching this play out. The specific policies that relate to social media and the policies that are specific to each social media site, aren’t necessarily understood by every member of the public.
I like that you brought attention to the divide this put on the Republican and Democratic parties. As if we needed another one during that time! The graphic that you used (Strong partisan divide in Americans’ views of permanently banning Trump from social media) greatly emphasized and offered a visual display of the divided opinions that were seen after the ban. I believe that the divide shows that people witnessing the situation weren’t necessarily interested in learning about the topic, rather they were just siding with their party. I think that dramatically highlights the negativities that arose during this time.
In the end, I think your post was a great way to begin our Civic Issue blogs. You discussed a well known situation that covers both media and politics and how they are related.
I really enjoyed reading your post! You can tell that you put in a lot of research and thought into your work. In your post, you bring up an excellent and prevalent question we all face as media increases in our society. When do we establish government interference on media platforms and where do we draw the line pertaining to freedoms? It has been displayed throughout history that liberty is important to Americans. This also includes liberty and freedom of press.
Media and journalism have a wide range of history because of the wide range of volumes used and created over time. To start in America’s earliest moments, America fought against England, not just because of their unjust rule, but because of the Stamp Tax created by England. Essentially the Stamp Tax made it harder for newspapers to be published due to the rise in price; meaning that it was harder for colonists to know of Britain’s misdeeds. Naturally, colonists began to question the rule of Britain and eventually revolted to form America.
As media and journalism evolve, it’s interesting to see how the government and the people handle it. Most of the time, the government stays out of media sources because they are, like you said, private companies. However, when broadcast radio became a major source of news, the Federal Communications Commission was created in order to regulate radio frequencies, set national standards, and oversee broadcasting and in some cases, telephones. But why did this not create revolt compared to other forms of government intervention? People tolerated the regulation of certain forms of media because they were defined as a public good. There are only so many frequencies available, so people accepted the fact that there should be heavier regulation on them compared to print news. When television became a main source of entertainment and news, it also began to receive regulation. The regulation of television and oftentimes radio, aren’t about censoring ideas, but rather making sure it is appropriate. Most people were okay with this regulation because it was not censorship of any sort and it allowed private companies to still control their channels.
The problem is that social media is just as prevalent as television news. This means that government regulation on social media must be done carefully, if at all. Regulation that has been done in the past never went past the boundary of controlling a private company. Rather, the government clarified that certain forms of speech, like obscenity, are not protected by the first amendment; meaning the government could prohibit those forms of speech from appearing on television, radio, print, or any other form of media. While it seems unfair to remove people from social media companies, I don’t see how the government stopping that creates a good outcome.
Private companies should have control of their platforms, which can be frustrating. Take FaceBook for example; their algorithm has been shown to spread misinformation faster than factual information. This is just one example of how social media is difficult to navigate, even more so politically. However, the government doesn’t control what is played on television shows, so why should the government control what is happening on social media platforms? And are social media platforms really the only place people can use their voice or are we as a society overlooking how many opportunities we have to speak out? Government regulation is always a hard topic because it involves calling for decisions people have never had before. Adding government regulation brings forth a lot of questions and concerns, both involving social media and other media in our society.
Overall I really enjoyed how much your blog post made me think about today’s issues with the growing popularity of social media. This was a great way to start off Civic Issue blogs and I can’t wait to see what you’ll write about next!
Source: https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/americangovernment2e/chapter/the-evolution-of-the-media/
I really really like how you contrasted censorship and regulations in different types of media. It kind of follows the line of my next blog post, which follows the legislation about censorship on social media (similar to federal legislation like the FCC committee). If I had a third blog, I’d debate the difference between federal regulations and state/local ones.
Hi Mara! I really loved reading your post! It is obvious you are very passionate about this topic by the amount of research you did and it was exciting to read because of that! I think your writing style was easy and fun to read! On top of that, I think your writing had a very nice flow to it. I think adding pictures to your blog also was a great way to seperate the page and add some visual intrest for your readers!
When you raised questions about social media policies regarding hate speech, I started reflecting on things I have seen and couldn’t agree more that speech on social media sites are restricted. I also think it was very intresting how you refered to the Trump removal. If we did have complete freedom of speech on socail media platforms, I don’t think he would have been removed, but that is not the case.
Furthermore, I thought it was very thought provoking when you asked the question about who gets the power to say what is hate speech and what is not! It can be traced back to the CEOs of these massive social media platforms and the power they have over the relationships between the people and the government! It is insane to think about how destructive that power can be! I feel like we have already seen it with the fake news that circulates around the internet and the division between Democratic and Republican parties. I also am curious how much social media affected the Capitol riots. If we didn’t have such polarizing news and advertisements on our screens would it have ever gotten to that point? It is very intresting to ponder.
I do believe that social media platforms deserve to have rights to their own platform and they can dictate who gets to say what and when. In my mind, it is very simular to a house and as a vistor (or a person using the app), you need to follow and listen to the rules and regulations given by the homeowner. This definity has its limits that should be respected by both parties and I think the key issue with the current social media platforms is the restricted behavors social media has on a person’s voice. With that said, I do think people should be banned and not react if they said something derogatory.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/protesters-storm-capitol-hill-building.html
I totally agree with her clear familiarity with her topic and clear passion for such; it is evident in her use of vocab alone. She also has a very strong voice as the author, and as an audience, I received her message very clearly. Your post, as Catherine suggests, has good flow and really makes the audience consider their own effects on media. Polarizing news, another thing mentioned by Catherine, is powerful in today’s society, and it makes us think that we are responsible for changing such a polarized system.
Hi Catherine! I enjoyed reading your comment. It had a nice balance of commenting on Mara’s ideas but also bringing in your ideas and research. I loved how you brought up the amount of influence social media has on people because as we all know it has a lot. Not only does misinformation spread faster on social media compared to factual information, but it’s hard to differentiate between the two. This spread of misinformation affects both political parties because it widens the divide that is already there. Like both Mara and you touched on, the issue of social media and its influence isn’t about splitting the parties up, but working together. I also really enjoyed your metaphor for private companies including social media. It helps put it into perspective! Nice job!
Donald Trump was such a great example of a common literary archetype: the trickster. I think the concept of a trickster figure goes hand-in-hand with the concept of controversy and the media; a topic similar to my own Civic Issue blog about the romanization of controversy in the media. Nonetheless, in this post, it really highlights some of Trump’s qualities which classify him as a trickster.
Unfortunately I cannot provide a link to this, but Lewis Hyde’s Trickster Makes This World, defines beautifully what a trickster is. An amoral, shameless, often hypersexual figure who draws, pushes, and crosses lines. They tread the path between two sides, whether it be life and death, old and young, poor and rich; they usually convince a character to do something as an unbiased influence of both sides. They are deviants of society, not in the sense that they are evil, but in the sense that their actions go against social norms. Say, if one publicly used vulgar language while in a position of power, or perhaps using a social platform to voice controversial opinions, or even, stick with me here, pathologically lied to cover up and defend the former?
Obviously, I attribute Donald Trump and his actions to those of a trickster figure, but the real point here is the trickster’s effect on the media. This topic, censorship in the media, is a constant point of interest for tricksters. One example that comes to mind is Larry Flynt, the man who first produced actual pornography in public magazines. There was a huge social change when Larry, a trickster himself, rewrote our societal norms to be more accepting of nudity and sex. He beat the court system by insisting on the rights of the first amendment and the people’s right to choose the media they consume. His argument, rooted in the Constitution, won him the case and freed him from prison.
The usage of Donald Trump’s media and it’s connection to the First Amendment is a great example of classic media censorship, something which demands awareness with today’s strides in communication. However, I would like to extend further to suggest that people like Donald Trump are necessary in American society. We, as a community, need to know where that line in the sand is, how far to take our opinions, and when it is appropriate to voice them. Donald Trump, as a trickster figure, drew those lines for society, informing politicians, celebrities, even everyday people just how far they could take their media without being censored.