I’ve always had this thought about free speech on social media.
When Twitter moved to ban Trump, I thought it was a bad idea. I thought “let us see it all, the good bad and ugly.”
Don’t let speech fester in darkness. Let all speech live in the light so people live in truth
I’m reading “sovereignty through mathematics” by Knut Svanholm and he mentions that there are two ways to solve conflict, speech or violence - and that’s why we need as much freedom to say what we want as possible.
If I remember correctly, Trump’s ban was bordering on a legal issue for twitt*r, eg he was very close to, if not actually inciting violence (not to mention the hundreds of likely defamation/threats to opponents prior). In this case you’d need to expand freedom of speech in the US to include incitement of violence and other things it doesn’t cover.
Yup, you’re right. I’m not completely sure how I feel and know it has been precedent.
Here’s Venice.ai response on it:
The ban of Trump from Twitter was due to his tweets being deemed as inciting violence, particularly in the context of the January 6, 2021, storming of the US Capitol. Twitter cited that his tweets violated their policies on glorifying violence.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects freedom of speech, which includes the right to express opinions, ideas, and beliefs without fear of government censorship or retribution. However, it does not protect all types of speech. The Supreme Court has established several exceptions, including incitement to imminent lawless action, obscenity, child pornography, and defamation.
In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that speech can be prohibited if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. This means that speech that is intended to provoke violence or other illegal activities is not protected under the First Amendment.
Other notable cases include New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), which established the "actual malice" standard for defamation cases involving public figures, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), which protected parody and satire as forms of free speech.
To expand freedom of speech in the US to include incitement of violence and other unprotected forms of speech would require a significant shift in the interpretation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has consistently held that certain types of speech, such as incitement to violence, are not protected in order to maintain public safety and prevent harm to individuals or groups.
It's worth noting that private companies, like Twitter, are not bound by the First Amendment in the same way that the government is. They can establish their own rules and policies regarding speech on their platforms, and users must agree to abide by those terms when using the service. In Trump's case, his ban from Twitter was a result of violating the company's policies, rather than a direct infringement on his First Amendment rights.
