There’s been some focus lately on right-leaning content being suppressed and banned from platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Many conservatives and self-proclaimed libertarians are advocating for government involvement in ensuring that free speech is allowed on these platforms.
In order for a given platform to remain the product that it is, it must censor some content. For example, excessive gore, pornography, and extraneous vulgarity are not allowed on sites such as Facebook or YouTube in order to foster a somewhat professional-friendly and kid-friendly environment. If you visit one of the platforms that do not censor virtually any speech (Voat, 8chan, etc.), you’ll see an abundance of racial slurs and other choice content. Surely, not all social media platforms would be required to submit to such circumstances. Under the implementation of some law promising free speech on social media, some content would be allowed to be censored by the given website but other content would not. The government would need to define what speech would be considered legal or illegal to censor. In order to consistently keep up with content, clearly define terms, and enforce these rules, either a new government agency would be created or an already existing agency would be expanded. In effect, such a law would mean a new Federal Communications Commission for the Internet. Having a government agency regulating what sites can restrict what content is a far further impediment on our free speech than any social media platform banning users.
These platforms should have the legal right to restrict whatever content they desire on their own websites. Freedom of speech implicates freedom of association, and these platforms are exercising said freedom. To take away this legal right is to deprive these companies of the very thing that these conservatives/”libertarians” are claiming to be champions of: freedom of speech. Few contest that social media platforms have the right to ban, mute, or suspend members from their networks; people are now taking issue with the why -- the motivation behind the action. Government regulation of the “why” is intervening within the thoughts of the owners. People have a problem with companies banning members due to the thought-process of anti-right bias. They don’t have a problem with businesses banning people due to some other mental deliberation.
My personal opinion is that Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube should foster free speech by permitting people to voice whatever controversial statements they want on their forums. However, if I were to endorse the idea of forcing that opinion onto others, I would be violating the very philosophy of freedom that leads me to endorse the concept of fostering free speech. Free speech is important and I’m glad that it is in the Constitution, but to say that everyone must personally endorse the idea of unrestricted speech and implement that into their own businesses is an anti-free speech, and anti-freedom, position.
