Is there bias in social media? I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly yes. The question is, what’s the best response? Should we limit free speech in the name of protecting it? What happens when governments picks winners and losers in the arena of free speech? We don’t have to hypothesize, because the test has already been run, and we’re reaping the harvest of asking government to protect us from our rights.
I was going through my list of ideas when I stumbled across an article about President Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship. I had planned to write an article about this EO when it was released back in May, but circumstances overtook us. Now that I’ve come back to this order, I wanted to look at the proper way of dealing with bias in media, both social and other news.
Free Speech
Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
Yes, America is a republic, not a democracy. Not only is free speech the bedrock of our society, but of other freedoms of expression as well. These freedoms of expression and conscience are protected at the federal level by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
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.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
I say the First Amendment protects us from federal interference with our freedom of expression because it starts with the words “Congress shall make no law…” Congress is the name of the federal legislature, so any act not based on a law made by Congress cannot violate the First Amendment. However, this protection of expression is so important that, as I understand it, each and every state provides protections for it in their own Constitutions.
The free communication of thoughts and opinions, is one of the invaluable rights of man and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.
Constitution of the State of Tennessee, Article I, Section 19
Our ability to express ideas contrary to the views of those in government, media, academia, or anyone with different point of view, is more than just a way to make us feel better. By expressing ideas contrary to current popular sentiment and orthodoxy, by engaging in debate about controversial subjects, we open the possibility of a search for truth. From Galileo’s theory that the earth revolved around the sun to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of a land where people are judged the the content of their character, the ability to express unpopular ideas have been the bedrock by which we have struggled to find the truth. Without the freedom to speak and publish unpopular ideas, we would still think the earth is flat, that black and Jewish people are sub-human, and that no one could travel faster than the speed of sound. These are just a few of the ideas once thought heretical and unacceptable in certain quarters. So what do we do when powerful actors use their influence to stifle such an important freedom?
Freedom of Speech in America Today
None of us like having our ideas challenged. We get our backs up at the mere mention of an idea that contradicts our own. So it should be no surprise that people have used the power of government to enforce their orthodoxy on others for centuries. Galileo was tried and found guilty of heresy. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was harassed by both his government and those who wanted a more militant response to racist laws. Unfortunately, it didn’t stop there. Today, scientists who disagree with “climate change” are shunned and many who publish their papers are fired. Teachers have lost their jobs for expressing ideas that offended some crowd, ideas that have been supported by science and history. In recent weeks we’ve seen everyone from corporate heads to newspaper editors fired or forced to resign for even allowing an idea that does not follow the orthodoxy of certain groups to see the light of day. The country where citizens once proudly proclaimed “I may vehemently disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” now screams with hysteria at the mere exposure to ideas they don’t like.
In short, freedom of expression is on life support in America today. It is under attack by government officials who want certain speech criminalized as “hate speech”, by an education system that tells our children and young adults they have a right not to be exposed to anything that might bother them, and by a media that determines what the people should and should not see. The latest entry into this cabal of thought police are social media companies who want to control what information flows through their systems in order to influence politics and public opinion. The question I have is: What should we do about these opponents to free expression and the unbridled search for the truth?
Speech Police
Those who don’t want to hear what they don’t like has always been a form of speech police. Whether government actors, religious organizations, or other people of influence, the ability to control what other people write and say is usually an effort to control what other people think and has a long history in this world and in this country. From people who called for the outlawing of mixed marriages to those who want “climate deniers” banned from the public square, from the Code of Practices for TV and the Motion Picture Production Code to those who want to ban any opposition to Black Lives Matter, and from the legalized racism of Jim Crow laws to the banning of any religious symbols in public. These are just a few examples of how the American people have used “speech police” in one form or another to prevent opposing ideas from gaining traction. And before you turn up your nose at the foibles of our predecessors, let us remember why President Trump has issued this order.
Originally, we treated Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the other “tech giants” as open platforms. We decided that as long as they were just the medium the information traversed, we would not hold them accountable for what was said. (This is from section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.) Are these companies now using their systems to manipulate what information is promoted and what in censored? Yes, but remember, if not started by the cries from the American people, it certainly was accelerated by them. Yes, the CEOs of these and other technology companies have been called to testify before Congress, in no small part because people were complaining about how they censored speech. If you remember, the original concern was that these companies were not censoring “hate speech” or other posts that some thought might incite violence. That’s right, the American people, both directly and through their representatives in Congress, demanded these tech giants censor expression they did not like. Is it really a surprise that once these companies were not only allowed, but expected, to censor expression, that this power would be used to the disadvantage of some?
We forgot the most basic rule of writing regulations: Assume they will be turned against you. We asked these companies to censor “hate speech”, but we failed to define what that is. You see, all speech is hateful to someone. Then we asked them to “fact check” political posts, not thinking that in today’s society just about everything is political. And since we did not provide a standard by which facts should be checked, once again we gave a loaded gun to someone to protect us, only to have it turned back on us. We asked these companies to place their fingers on the scales of justice and are shocked, shocked to find out that they are being used against us. Now that these giant tech companies have pointed their guns at certain political and social ideas in our society, ideas that are cherished by so many Americans, what’s our answer? For President Trump, and most of the people I’ve heard talk about it, the answer is to hand a larger gun to the federal government.
Limiting Speech
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.
As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
In his executive order, President Trump says that free speech is the bedrock of American democracy and that he is committed to free and open debate. Then he complains that certain companies use their speech to influence others. Isn’t that the purpose of free speech?
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
Again, we see the American people looking to government to be the bully. They do not like the way these companies are treating their data, and their solution is to get government to force them to behave the way they want. They are using the government to do what they claim is being done to them. Either comply with our wishes, express the ideas we believe are right, or have control of your property taken away from you. And make no mistake, that is exactly what President Trump’s order, Congress’ proposed legislation, and others calls to regulate these “tech giants” are: Either enforce our orthodoxy or be taken over. What very few people seem to realize is that once you give the government the power to control what speech must and must not be allowed, you have given them the Orwellian power to regulate “free speech”. Is this really any different than California’s demand that pregnancy centers must advertise for abortion clinics? Are we calling for these companies and their owners to recant what they believe, just as the inquisition did to Galileo back in the 1600’s?
Conclusion
Why? Why are the American people doing this? Why are people demanding that the government regulate the speech of private companies, and by extension, the people who own them? For the same reason so many people love term limits: They want to force other people to comply with their wishes.
No one is forcing you to use Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, or any of the services these companies provide. More importantly, no one is preventing you from using other services that either don’t censor their data or do so with a different bias. The President is wrong: These companies have no power to control what you do and do not see, only what you see on their platform.
Have these companies violated their terms of service? The evidence I’ve seen so far seems to say so, but that is a problem the federal government has created. By granting these companies immunity without defining or defending the limits that were put on them, the government has denied the American people a redress for their grievances against these companies. By allowing these companies to editorialize through their filters and promotions while at the same time protecting them from lawsuits for their malicious practices, it is the government who has denied you your rights. Yet these are the same people you want to regulate free speech in this country?
As I said, these companies have no control over what information you receive, only what information transits their platform. There is a reason I no longer watch Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC. Why I no longer listen to Rush Limbaugh, or Mark Levin, and why I do not rely on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Parler, or a myriad of other sources for news. Why? In my eyes, they have been weighed and found wanting; they are not a trusted resource and I no longer rely on them. I consume various news feeds from various sources, something that’s extremely easy to do in today’s Information Age. I then vet the individual stories, and thereby regulate my news. You’re free to search out and consume data from any source you wish, but that will take a little more work, and I guess the American people have become too lazy to do more than sit around and be fed the gruel those in Silicon Valley think is best for them. And rather than using their free speech to convince others of their opinion, they are more than willing to hand over their rights to a government to regulate their lives. We fought a war 244 years ago to protect our rights from government, but today it seems most Americans are more than happy to hand them back over and live as slaves.
