The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights affirms that all people have a right to freedom of speech. This means that the government cannot suppress or ban someone for their political ideology or their belief. However, a private organization could do such a thing; for example, a church or private school can ban profanity on their grounds. There is a free speech gray area relating to what public/private partnerships can and should do about it; this is a problem with our crony capitalist system.
Atilla Sulker | United States
With the recent suspending of the accounts of many individuals on social media sites including Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, people are beginning to question the validity of the move. In fact, some liken it to an attack on free speech and a bold censorship. To the libertarian, this is a major area of concern; before any actions take place, one must evaluate the situation critically.
We must first establish the premise that government tends to gradually prey on our liberties more and more. We are like the frog in the boiling pot, so to speak. If we assign government a small task, the scope of this task becomes larger over time. As a result, we end up with more regulations and fewer liberties. Based on this premise, the goal that the libertarian should be aiming at is to extend free speech as far as possible without violating the non-aggression principle.
The Nature of Rights
It is also important to realize how rights work. Rights are hierarchical, and at the top of the hierarchy is property rights. From property rights stems the freedom of speech and a whole range of other rights. Property rights not only allow the owner of the property to say what he pleases on the property, but also give him the power to use property such as billboards and signs to spread his message. In this way, property rights come before free speech.
You can not come onto my property and say as you wish. I, as the owner, set the limits as to what people can and can’t say. Though I may allow you to say certain things, you have no initial right to speech on my property; I must grant it to you. We can clearly see the superiority of property rights to free speech.
So how does all this apply to the digital paradigm? I will now begin exploring a term I have coined: “digital property rights”.
Rights and Social Media
Many people use the argument that Facebook and Twitter, among other social media sites, are private companies and they hence have the right to pick and choose who can use their site. If one thinks about this, it is similar to businesses in the physical realm. For this analogy, I will be comparing social media sites to giant apartments.
If I were to rent an apartment, I would have access to a certain area of property, but I’d simply be renting it and would still have to live within a certain set of rules that the property owner sets. The apartment owner has laid out his terms in our contract. He could quite possibly charge me fees for various violations of the contract, whether it be a noise violation, a disturbance of peace, etc.
Connecting this to social media, it becomes clear that accounts operate in this same way. The account user is entering the “digital property” of the site owner. The site owner ultimately has the rights to grant or revoke the right of speech to the user. It is his or her “digital property”; hence, he or she sets the rules. We can think of account restrictions and temporary bans as fees charged to the tenant in the apartment for various violations of the contract. We can think of account terminations as the evictions of the digital realm.
So where has this analogy lead us to, and what implications does it have for the libertarian? For one thing, it outlines the importance of the voluntary contract, but beyond this, it shows how fundamental property rights are to the libertarian conscience. It seems that property rights can solve practically any issue, and this is certainly one of them. It can, of course, be applied to areas beyond just social media, including websites and domains.
Now a common objection to the ideas I have laid down would be that these social media sites have conspired with the government to ban certain people, and hence this is not private discrimination, but public discrimination. Though this argument may be convincing, it is important to never lose sight of our goal, which is the diminution of the scope of government. If we were to try and stop social media sites from taking such actions, it would bring in further government intervention, which is not a good means to our desired ends.
Another objection that I have heard is that these various social media sites are “monopolies”. In assessing this claim, it is important to look at monopoly from an Austrian economist’s perspective. To the Austrian, monopoly is not when a certain firm controls the majority of an industry, but when it has the government’s permission and privilege to do so. Luckily, there are still alternative routes to spread ideas on the internet.
The Only Fair Is Laissez-faire
The private industry is very important in protecting one’s freedoms because incentives for profit are directly linked to the satisfaction of the consumer. Some people think that it is wrong to criticize the censorship of certain social media sites, because they are private. However, one can criticize a private company, yet still believe in its sovereignty. After all, the whole point of privatizing is to ensure greater consumer satisfaction.
Laissez-faire capitalism is the only way to increase the amount of choices in an industry to the greatest extent. With the consumer in control, we will ultimately see the fate of sites like Facebook and Twitter. If the consumer does not like their execution of censorship, they may protest the sites and boycott them. These same protocols exist in any industry. The consumer decides the fate of a company, so if a firm is not pleasing the consumer, they will either have to change their ways or liquidate. This is one of the many benefits of capitalism. Vote with your dollar!
Originally published on Lewrockwell.com
71 Republic prides itself on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon. We appreciate your support.
By Colin Louis | United States
Over the last couple of weeks, new revelations have come forward about Facebook’s use of user data. This, along with bannings on various social media platforms, has raised several questions about social media censorship.
Many supporters of censorship claim that it will prevent giving the Alt-Right a platform on social media. They may sound good in theory, but they don’t work in practice. Extremists still spread extremism online.
There are two ways we can take on this problem of Alt-Right online extremism; we can debate or we can ban. Censorship is not the way to go.
Let’s see who’s not being censored.
Richard Spencer, a White Supremacist and founder of the Alt-Right still has a Twitter and Instagram account.
Matthew Heimbach, a Neo-Nazi and leader of the Traditionalist Workers Party still has a YouTube account that he posts his hateful videos.
Paul Nehlen, a White Nationalist and candidate for Wisconsin’s first congressional district still has an Instagram account.
AltRight.com, the literal website for the Alt-Right is fully functional.
BloodandSoil.org, the website for the white nationalist group ‘Patriot Front’ is actively recruiting members on their website. (“Blood and Soil” was a nazi chant yelled at Charlottesville.)
Nsm88.org, the official website for the National Socialist Movement, the new American Nazi Party is still fully functional. The “88” in the website name is code for “hail Hitler,” (The 8th letter of the alphabet is H. HH is short for “hail Hitler.”)
The point is that censorship by Google, Twitter, and YouTube doesn’t work against the Alt-Right. While it’s unfortunate, regardless of if we shut them up or not hate will continue to spread and we should take a better approach to it. The Alt-Right is an ideology of hate that can only be combated with free speech.
The only solution is to debate them and prove their ideology wrong (just as one would with any other dangerous ideology).
If you want to show the world that Nazism and White Supremacy aren’t the way to go, beat them in debate and prove to the internet they are wrong. Use facts and logic as your sword, not censorship.
Even if you take away their platform racists are still going to be racist.
If you beat them on their platform you will see what little influence they have. Take Richard Spencer’s speech in Florida: almost nobody would have showed up if the Governor hadn’t declared a state of emergency. By taking their platform away they can tell people “they want to censor us because we tell the truth!”
Censoring them makes it look like they are winning. It makes the other side look scared of their arguments. It is the weak thing to do.
So, don’t use censorship to attack the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is a force of hate and ignorance, but we need to use logic to prove them wrong. Removing a couple of twitter pages won’t do anything, we need to focus our force on destroying their core philosophy.