Arguments about free speech have been making the rounds through my social media feeds again, so I thought this might be a good time to write a quick refresher about what is and isn’t covered under first amendment protection.
The first amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
There is a lot packed into that simple sentence. It is the foundation of the ideals of religious freedom, freedom of assembly and free speech. As a journalist, I’m especially fond of that “or of the press.”
As Americans, we have the right to worship as we see fit. We can march in the streets to protest laws and actions we don’t think are right. We can criticize politicians, a right I take full advantage of whenever the opportunity presents itself. We can do all these things free of reprisal from the government. We won’t be thrown in jail, have our assets seized or charged with treason, despite what some may tell their supporters.
When it comes to social media, however, the protections we enjoy under the first amendment are slightly weakened. When posting on Facebook, we are using their software, their servers, their property to send our message. The message is public. It is protected by the first amendment. The medium, the way in which the message is transmitted, is not public. It is private, and the entity owning said medium is not required to uphold the same first amendment protections.
In short, the government won’t come after me for saying Tate Reeves is a ______, but Facebook might. My speech is protected, but the first amendment does not require a company to let me use their platform to spread my views.
There has been a lot of discussion recently about Facebook and Twitter blocking people with certain viewpoints. The conservative users seem to think the social media giants are hellbent on silencing them. The liberal users claim their views are being attacked. I have a hard time believing either is true.
Neither Facebook or Twitter is required to let users have an account, but it’s in their best interest to have as many different people and voices as possible. Dissenting opinions create discussion, or more likely drama. Drama attracts other users, increasing the number of eyes on ads, which in turn means more money.
Social media users are given a fairly wide latitude for drama, dissent and insults. The rise in people having their accounts suspended doesn’t point to an assault on freedom of speech, to me, as much as it does highlight just how nasty the partisan politics have become in our nation. People on social media are just flat out mean.
For 99 percent of users, getting banned from Facebook or Twitter isn’t going to be an issue. However, to be on the safe side, here a few reminders about what you post: 1. Nothing you post online is private. 2. Nothing you post online is completely deleted. 3. Political posts will turn nasty. 4. Godwin’s law.
That was a lot of text to explain a fairly simple idea. Basically, it comes down to this: Being banned from social media does not mean there is a conspiracy out to silence your views. It means you should probably wash out your mouth.
Thomas is the managing editor of the Newton County Appeal. He can be reached at thoward@newtoncountyappeal.com
