The twenty-first century has seen the rise in power and prominence of social media and the role that it plays in society. In 2019 over 70% of the United States population was active on some form of social media (Pew Research Center). Social media plays a crucial role in the public discourse, especially when it comes to matters of politics. A point of conflict has come about due to the fact that social media platforms are privately owned entities that do not have to abide by the first amendment’s principle of freedom of speech.
In 2018, Alex Jones, a known conspiracy theorist as well as the host of Infowars, was removed from the popular platforms of YouTube, Facebook, and Apple. Jones was removed for violating the user agreements in place within the platforms by promoting hate speech and violence. Jones responded by accusing the companies of censorship. In a statement released by Facebook, the company said “We believe in giving people a voice, but we also want everyone using Facebook to feel safe. It’s why we have community standards and remove anything that violates them, including hate speech that attacks or dehumanizes others,” (Chappell). Since YouTube, Facebook, and Apple are all privately owned companies, Jones’ right to freedom of speech is not protected from corporate policies and decisions in regards to what is and what is not allowed on their platforms. In a statement released to Buzzfeed, Apple said “Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users,” going on further to state that those who violate these guidelines are removed from Apple’s directories (Coaston).
Many were happy with the decision to ban Alex Jones from these platforms due to his history of promoting harmful conspiracy theories such as the idea that Sandy Hook was a false-flag operation and all of the families are actors, to the propagation of the Pizzagate conspiracy in 2016 which led to a man showing up at a D.C. pizzeria with an AR-15 rifle looking for a child pedophile ring(Doubek). Jones has even encouraged his viewers to harass victims of mass shootings and their families. However, Jones does have supporters when it comes to the topic of him being removed from these platforms.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz saw the act of removing Alex Jones and Infowars from these platforms as an affront to freedom of speech. On July 28, 2018 Cruz tweeted, “Am no fan of Jones — among other things he has a habit of repeatedly slandering my Dad by falsely and absurdly accusing him of killing JFK — but who the hell made Facebook the arbiter of political speech? Free speech includes views you disagree with. #1A” (Cruz).
On August 6, 2018, WikiLeaks, an organization known for publishing leaks and classified documents, tweeted, “Infowars says it has been banned by Facebook for unspecified ‘hate speech’. Regardless of the facts in this case, the ability of Facebook to censor rivial publishers is a global anti-trust problem, which along with San Francisco cultural imperialism, reduces political diversity.” (WikiLeaks).
From one point of view, Alex Jones violated the user agreements and community standards set in place on these platforms. Jones does not have a right to use these platforms because they are not protected under the first amendment’s right to freedom of speech due to the fact that they are privately owned companies. Jones knew the platform rules before making these posts and was aware of the possible consequences therefore it is his own fault that he was banned. This is not an issue of constitutionality.
From the opposing point of view, freedom of speech was intended to protect from the censorship of speech occurring within the public discourse. The founding fathers had no way of knowing the ways in which that sphere of public discourse would technologically evolve to the point where it is at today. There is legal precedent for this argument due to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Marsh v. Alabama which was decided in 1946 (Jr., David). A Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for distributing religious information in a privately owned Alabama town on the grounds of trespassing on the sidewalk. The Supreme Court ruled this to be unconstitutional on the grounds that if a private entity (i.e. a privately owned company town) operates in a public manner or performs a public function then it is subject to the United States Constitution (Case Briefs). This means that in cases like the one described above, constitutional rights take precedence over the private entity’s property rights. Applying this decision to prominent social media companies, the role they play in public discourse has grown to a point where the argument can be made that they operate in a public manner and perform a public function and are thus subject to the United States Constitution in the same manner that the government is.
Discussion Questions:
- Is Alex Jones being banned from these platforms a danger to the first amendment’s right to the freedom of speech?
- Are there other methods these platforms could have taken to enforce their rules without banning Alex Jones?
- Could the Marsh v. Alabama Supreme Court ruling be applied to some of the modern legal challenges faced by social media companies regarding freedom of speech and constitutional obligations?
Further Information:
Case Briefs. “Marsh v. Alabama.” Casebriefs Marsh v Alabama, Case Briefs LLC., www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/the-structure-of-the-constitutions-protection-of-civil-rights-and-civil-liberties/marsh-v-alabama/.
Chappell, Bill, and Anastasia Tsioulcas. “YouTube, Apple and Facebook Ban Infowars, Which Decries ‘Mega Purge’.” NPR, NPR, 6 Aug. 2018, www.npr.org/2018/08/06/636030043/youtube-apple-and-facebook-ban-infowars-which-decries-mega-purge.
Coaston, Jane. “YouTube, Facebook, and Apple’s Ban on Alex Jones, Explained.” Vox, Vox, 6 Aug. 2018, www.vox.com/2018/8/6/17655658/alex-jones-facebook-youtube-conspiracy-theories.
Cruz, Ted (@tedcruz) “Am no fan of Jones — among other things he has a habit of repeatedly slandering my Dad by falsely and absurdly accusing him of killing JFK — but who the hell made Facebook the arbiter of political speech? Free speech includes views you disagree with. #1A” 28 June 2018, 9:05 AM. Tweet.
Doubek, James. “Conspiracy Theorist Alex Jones Apologizes For Promoting ‘Pizzagate’.” NPR, NPR, 26 Mar. 2017, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/26/521545788/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-apologizes-for-promoting-pizzagate.
Pew Research Center. “Demographics of Social Media Users and Adoption in the United States.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research Center, 5 June 2020, www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/.
Jr., David L. Hudson. “Free Speech or Censorship? Social Media Litigation Is a Hot Legal Battleground.” ABA Journal, American Bar Association, 1 Apr. 2019, www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/social-clashes-digital-free-speech. WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) “Infowars says it has been banned by Facebook for unspecified ‘hate speech’. Regardless of the facts in this case, the ability of Facebook to censor rivial publishers is a global anti-trust problem, which along with San Francisco cultural imperialism, reduces po