Elon Musk recently bought Twitter for approximately 44 billion dollars. One of the reasons Mr. Musk wanted to buy Twitter is because he feels that Twitter is too restrictive in its policies for posting content. People often talk about their freedom of speech that is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Folks act like the First Amendment gives them unfettered speech; the liberty to say whatever they want, when they want, about what they want, in any way they want to. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well as the other amendments are specific to the relationship between citizens and their government. Just because you have a First Amendment right to express yourself freely and fully to and about the government doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want to in the public square. There are libel and slander laws that proscribe certain kinds of speech. There are civil torts that limit what you can say and where you can say it; the classic example is there is no right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater when, in fact, there is no fire. Private employers can set limits on your speech and freedom of expression in the workplace. No thinking person actually believes that they have a right to free speech at work, not anyone who wants to stay employed anyway. Private companies, like Twitter, can make decisions about what they will and what they won’t allow in their “private” space – even if that platform seems very public to their users at large.
There are also the limitations imposed by common courtesy, societal expectations and public propriety. These bonds seem to be loosening as our society becomes coarser. For example, when I was a kid “swearing” on television was represented by phrases like “dadgummit” (a stand in for God damn it), “what in the Sam Hill” (what in the Hell) etc. instead of using the actual swear words themselves as often happens on television these days. Victoria Secret commercials would have been considered soft porn back in my day and the list of examples goes on.
These days everyone seems to be for free speech for themselves and a muzzle for others. That’s Elon Musk’s beef with Twitter. However, do we really want unfettered speech? Do we want racists, Nazis, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, cannibals and the like to have free and unfettered expression on the Internet and in other forums? Is it healthy to give the same space and weight to conspiracy theories, self-proclaimed gurus and other charlatans along side those who are the truly experienced and qualified experts? For example, we’ve seen the damage that has been done and the lives that have been lost because of those who professed to have cures and answers for Covid without professional credentials or peer reviewed research but who used various media platforms to successfully peddle their quack nostrums to the desperate and the gullible.
Often people are insulted by what others say or post. Those offended frequently want to hold the host platform responsible for what individuals post there. That’s where Section 230 of Title 47 comes into play. It reads, in part:
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
What all that legalese means is that the person who actually posts the content is responsible for any inaccuracies, civil or criminal liability etc. and not the platform itself, Twitter as an example. It also means that the platform cannot get into trouble if they censor content in order to try and weed out false statements, content that may be of a libelous nature or for taking down material that is inflammatory. This makes a lot of sense. Millions of people all around the world are posting things all the time on social media and it would be unreasonable to expect those platforms to monitor all those posts immediately in real time for everything that is criminal, uncivil, “fighting words” or offensive etc.
We shouldn’t want to open the door to absolutely unfettered speech. Our already difficult circumstances on and with social media would get unmercifully vicious and out of control very, very quickly. There is already an epidemic of depression, bullying and even suicide (especially among teenage girls) because of social media in its current form. How ugly would our virtual world be if everyone could say anything without filter or consequence?
Free speech is an important liberty. It’s a right certainly but it’s also a responsibility. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not grant the right to spray bullets indiscriminately in the public sphere. The same is true of the First Amendment; just because you have the right to express yourself doesn’t mean you should. If you choose to state your views, there is a corresponding obligation to do so in a respectful and sensible way.
The old adage states, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words may never hurt me.” I’m not sure that was ever true. I agree with Robert Fulghum, the author of All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten, when he revised the proverb by saying, “Sticks and stones may break our bones but words will break our hearts.” Let’s promote free speech but protect our children and ourselves from unfettered speech in what is inevitably a never ending and evolving endeavor to keep our society civil.