1st Amendment, Free Speech, Censorship, Hate Speech, Facebook

I should be working on some questions for a deposition I am taking tomorrow...I really should. But Tommy Jordan, III (who blogs here) HAD to go and post a question on Facebook (the "Post") seeking input as to what people thought of Alex Jones (this guy) being banned by various media platforms (Facebook, Apple, YouTube). Being well-connected on Facebook, there have been a wide variety of responses to Tommy's post. Most were well-intentioned, but many were also full of serious errors. I felt compelled to respond in this blog post. Thanks, Tommy.

The purpose of this blog post is to discuss some differing concepts raised by Tommy's post, and try to make some differentiation. I plan to keep things as simple as possible (who really wants to read about all the fine points of 1st Amendment debates during the Founding of the United States), while at the same time attempting to create fine enough points of distinction that the differences in the concepts can be observed.

The best place to start, as it was raised by a number of commentators on the Post, is with the 1st Amendment freedom of speech. And the place to start, if one wishes to do so with first principles in mind, is the text of that amendment, as the text pertains to freedom of speech. In relevant part, the 1st Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

That's it. Of course, there are many court cases following which interpret this speech in different aspects and situations. But, what is critical, especially in the matter of Alex Jones, is to realize that the 1st Amendment restricts Congress from making laws. That's it. Now, it may have some impact on other government entities (such as state governments, local governments, etc.) due to other legal matters, but none of them change the central idea that, absent some form of government action, the 1st Amendment is not implicated in regard to speech.

So, for example, if the government makes a law requiring Facebook to remove all "hate speech" from its pages, then the government has violated the 1st Amendment, even if Facebook were willing to go along when requested. But when Facebook, in and of itself, decides to block or remove certain content on its own, no dice. Perfectly legal. Now, this is not to say that what Facebook does could implicate Civil Rights laws (so, if Facebook decided to remove all speech by Hispanics, that might implicate Civil Rights), or other laws aimed at copyright and trademark protection. However, simply in terms of blocking content Facebook doesn't like, for reasons other than Civil Rights, the 1st Amendment free speech doctrines do not apply.

Which leads me to "censorship." This term should go down with words which are "meaningless, f**king term[s]." This word gets thrown around as a derogatory phrase so often, with so many different (intended or unintended) nuances that it should be reserved for historical context only. It's like calling someone a "Nazi" - 99% of the time, the speaker has no capability to make the distinctions necessary to actually use the term correctly. Thus, the speaker is revealed as a mindless ***kwad.

Now, if we're not going to drop it, then we should make an attempt to use it more precisely. Censor, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary, means several things. As a noun, it means:

One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.

Or, more broadly:

An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the government. 

Note that the idea of "official" or "governmental" exists in both definitions. Relatedly, censor, as a verb, has the expected definition of "[t]o act as censor to." And therefore, censorship, as you might guess with a little thought, means:

The office or function of a censor...official supervision. [Also] control of dramatic production and films...[or]...of the press.

Now, turning to Facebook's control of content on its network, absent being forced to do so by the government, it cannot be censorship. Facebook is free to block or allow whatever content it wishes (absent, as I said before, certain specific limitations not implicated here), including anything at all which it or its audience dislikes, and it is not a censor. People who throw the word around willy-nilly, without bothering to understand the meaning of the term, ought to be forced into remedial English class taught by the ghost of Ambrose Bierce.

"Hate Speech" is another meaningless f**king term. It's a bull***t phrase, weaponized and deployed (mostly by the Left), to shut down conversation. What does it mean? Sometimes it's used to denote language which contains racist, sexist, and other *ist content. But, it's more often used to refer to speech the speaker simply doesn't like, or doesn't want to have to discuss. Claim that children who believe they are transgender often grow out of it? "Hate Speech!" Claim that people who have been charged with sexual assault should be given the benefit of "innocent until proven guilty?" "Hate speech!" And so on, and so forth.

However....it should be kept in mind that Facebook is free to deem "hate speech" any language, images, argument, discussion, meme, phrase, etc., it wants, and free to block it from its network. It doesn't matter whether it's Alex Jones or St. Patrick himself blogging about driving the serpents out of Congress - Facebook can block it.

Finally, the people on the Post who commented that it's a sad state of affairs are, likely, closest to the truth. Given that users on Facebook are capable of simply blocking or ignoring speech they don't like, and others are capable of debating speech they don't like, Facebook seems to be acting rather paternalistically. It does so, no doubt, to virtue signal how much it wants to protect people from "hate speech" and "evil" and etc. But in doing so, it helps contribute to the Balkanization of our politics and our society, by insulating people who might otherwise be open to discussion from each other. In that way, Facebook simply reinforces societal echo chambers, so that nobody need "fear" being exposed to opinions with which they disagree, or facts which might contradict their own opinions.