# Are social media's recent bannings a freedom of expression issue? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 12, 2021, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330 "2021-01-12T14:56:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/282 "2021-01-16T02:34:28Z")
Pretty straightforward. “Hate speech, threats, and the encouragement of violence are not allowed. They are identified both by the use of algorithms and by human reviewers. Individual posts can also be flagged for review. (X) posts removed will result in suspension but we reserve the right for immediate suspension or expulsion for particularly egregious posts. Continued violations upon return from suspension will result in expulsion. If a poster feels that the decision of suspension or expulsion is made in error the following appeals process is available…” The major target of this remedy is the inconsistency and arbitrariness of rules application. I doubt this is the only remedy possible. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/283 "2021-01-16T02:35:42Z")
Nope, you failed at the very first mention of hate speech, which is protected by the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/284 "2021-01-16T02:37:14Z")
It also looks like I’m free to post pornography as I see fit as well. And I can troll/harass to my hearts content. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/285 "2021-01-16T02:44:50Z")
From the start that argument was noted to be clearly invalid and not relevant. The 1A issue is the right of the company to decide what it allows or does not allow to be expressed. The issue is protecting those rights while facilitating a balance of control over hate speech/ disinformation and protecting the voices of dissent. 1A would prevent forcing a private company to host hate speech or dissent. Clear ToS consistently enforced with a transparent process though achieves the minimum of giving users and consumers knowledge over what they are actually signing in to. ETA written specifically in response to the Nazi example. Easy to add categories. Key is the clarity and the obligation to the TOS from their side that currently does not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/286 "2021-01-16T02:51:37Z")
It’s amazing that someone who posts on such an inconsequential site as this one and still sees people try to rules-lawyer it death would think establishing bright-line rules would solve any problem. And you’ve never defined hate speech. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/287 "2021-01-16T02:54:52Z")
‘My belief that all homo’s deserve death is Biblical and protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT!!1! Our message board reserves the right to ban anyone that advocates any non Biblical lifestyle.’ ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/288 "2021-01-16T02:58:01Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > “Hate speech, threats, and the encouragement of violence are not allowed. They are identified both by the use of algorithms and by human reviewers. Individual posts can also be flagged for review. (X) posts removed will result in suspension but we reserve the right for immediate suspension or expulsion for particularly egregious posts. Continued violations upon return from suspension will result in expulsion. If a poster feels that the decision of suspension or expulsion is made in error the following appeals process is available…” …the twitter rules: > [@Twitter](#): > > **[Hateful conduct:](https://help.twitter.com/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules#hateful-conduct)** You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories. > > **Hateful imagery and display names:** You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. You also may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category. > > … > > ### When this applies > > We will review and take action against reports of accounts targeting an individual or group of people with any of the following behavior, whether within Tweets or Direct Messages. [https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy](https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy) Much more at the link. > [@](#): > > In 2016, [we established](https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/a/2016/announcing-the-twitter-trust-safety-council.html) the Twitter Trust and Safety Council, which brings together more than 40 experts and organizations to help advise us as we develop our products, programs and [the Twitter Rules](http://twitter.com/rules). We’ve been discussing internally and with the current members how we can make sure the Council best serves the people who use Twitter, and heard feedback that we needed to broaden membership to include a more diverse range of voices and organize members to have deeper conversations. > > Going forward, the Council will be made up of several groups, each focused on advising us on important issues that contribute to real-world harm. These are difficult areas to discuss, so it’s even more important to ensure these topics have dedicated time and are understood as unique challenges in their own right. In 2020, we will initially set up groups focused on: > > - Safety and online harassment > - Human and digital rights > - Child sexual exploitation > - Suicide prevention and mental health [https://blog.twitter.com/en\_us/topics/company/2019/strengthening-our-trust-and-safety-council.html](https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/strengthening-our-trust-and-safety-council.html) > [@DSeid](#): > > The major target of this remedy is the inconsistency and arbitrariness of rules application. I doubt this is the only remedy possible. > [@DSeid](#): > > ETA written specifically in response to the Nazi example. Easy to add categories. **Key is the clarity and the obligation to the TOS from their side that currently does not exist.** But the clarity and the obligation in the TOS **do** exist. What made you think that they didn’t? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/289 "2021-01-16T03:23:27Z")
The current inconsistency in its application by the platforms, and the post upthead (I can find later if you want) which noted that the provider is not obligated to the terms of service at all. It is not a contract from their side. What made you think they had any obligation to follow it under current law? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/290 "2021-01-16T03:24:31Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > What made you think they had any obligation to follow it under current law? …do you actually think they should be **obligated** to follow their TOS under the current law? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/291 "2021-01-16T03:27:24Z")
I leave you to read what has been written. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/292 "2021-01-16T03:35:21Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I leave you to read what has been written …I have. Like many other people in the thread we find your position confused and contradictory. A simple yes or no answer to my question would clear a lot of things up ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/293 "2021-01-16T03:42:58Z")
I find your claim of “we” to be a bit presumptuous. No one else seems to have a hard time understanding plainly written text. But since reading above this - > [@DSeid](#): > > Yes I feel strongly enough that I would propose a legal remedy that gives broad 1A consistent guardrails to what the platforms ToS can look like, impose upon the platforms an obligation to implement their ToS as consistently as possible, and to have a process in place to do that which includes some appeal process. is not clear to YOU, I will repeat: yes I would propose as I did. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/294 "2021-01-16T03:55:03Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > yes I would propose as I did. … what if the platform hosts thier servers somewhere the 1a doesn’t apply? Not everywhere considers the 1a ideal. How do you enforce it beyond borders? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/295 "2021-01-16T04:11:30Z")
Again 1A has little to do with this other than allowing some protection to the platforms from being forced to carry speech they do not like. I am not aware of any country’s government trying to force them to carry specific speech that they don’t want to allow. The problem with them with other nations is their off on willingness to restrict dissenting speech as the autocrats instruct in return for access to the market. I have no solution to offer for that and see that track record as reason for concern in possible futures, especially as their market power becomes more substantial and durable. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/296 "2021-01-16T16:40:19Z")
No, you have not accurately stated my position. Misinformation is a factual matter, not based on what I like or don’t like. Information is either true or untrue. The people banned for spreading misinformation were banned for stuff like spreading falsehoods about the election, claiming fraud, lies about COVID-19, and so on. None of this was stuff that someone just called “misinformation” but was really a different of opinion. It was factually wrong, and demonstrably dangerous, regardless of what anyone “likes.” Similarly, my moral arguments are not about what I like or dislike, any more than yours are. I simply argued that freedom of expression is not the moral at issue here, and that other moral concepts are. Certain things are generally accepted as egregiously wrong and thus unacceptable—spreading misinformation, advocating violence, inciting a riot, staging a coup, certain blatantly bigoted remarks, and so on. I, like most people, think those are wrong and harmful, and thus agree with Twitter’s position that such should be bannable offenses. That said, I believe Twitter would have every right to change their policy. Twitter would have every right to ban AOC as you describe. However, unless she violated one of those things above, I would oppose them doing so. I would in fact support a boycott and try to set up an alternative, and I would be far from the only one. I in fact would not expect Twitter to retain its very high position in the marketplace. It would be more like Parler. And that’s why they don’t just randomly ban people or change their policy like that–they know it would harm them. The main purpose of my post was to disagree with your assertion that someone who did not believe it was a freedom of speech issue must therefore think the scenario you described is perfectly acceptable. I can actually both say that Twitter has the right to ban AOC in the scenario you describe, but they also shouldn’t do it. I can then use my freedom of expression to cause consequences for their actions. The reason I care so deeply about this is what I see as the inevitable result. If we do say Twitter banning people for violating its policies is a freedom of expression issue, then the result is that the bannings were wrong, and they need to be undone. We’d then be forced to allow the misinformation that led to the sedition, the misinformation about COVID-19 that is killing people, the calls to violence, the racism and bigotry that harms minorities, the harassment and death threats, and so on. In short, seeing it as a freedom of speech issue lets these people who are causing harm win the ideological debate, and I find that utterly undesirable. That is the problem with this what I consider an obsessive focus on freedom of expression to the exclusion of all other morals. And it’s an argument I’ve been making for most of my 11 years on this board. If we make everything a freedom of speech issue, we wind up with no way of having any other morals matter. That’s not about what I like. It’s about morals–i.e. what is best for society, for humanity at large. That’s always something that will be based on opinion, but those opinions can be backed by fact and rational argument. And I thoroughly believe I’ve done so. I do not think that position, with all its arguments, can be reduced to “what @BigT likes.” It’s based on moral principles, ones that society in general at least claims to hold. It just doesn’t put “freedom of expression” as the one most important moral over all the rest. (Sorry for the delay in replying.) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/297 "2021-01-16T17:35:23Z")
I thought this wasnt gonna be about the 1st Ad? Look, mask deniers kill people. Antivaxxers kill kids. Qanon kill cops. White supremacist kill minorities. So there is no “freedom of expression” for them that isnt dictated by the 1st Ad. Since privately owned boards and whatnot are not controlled by the 1st Ad, then those things not only can be banned but should be banned. Now, promoting the violent overthrow of the Government isnt even allowed under the 1st Ad. So, that pretty much also throw out the Qs and the MAGA ilk. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/298 "2021-01-16T17:45:16Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The current inconsistency in its application by the platforms, and the post upthead (I can find later if you want) which noted that the provider is not obligated to the terms of service at all. It is not a contract from their side. If you’re referring to the link in my post #268, here it is again for reference: > [@Kimstu](#): > > [AFAICT there is no way to require or enforce that Twitter be consistent in their ToS enforcement:](https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/2021/01/08/policies-arent-contracts-why-social-media-can-decide-when-trump-crosses-the-line/?slreturn=20210015160144) > > > [@](#): > > > > Policies Aren’t Contracts: Why Social Media Can Decide When Trump Crosses the Line > > > > > Social media companies don’t have to consistently enforce their policies or terms of services. And there’s little legal recourse for those looking to force them to abide more closely to their own rules. If you meant Dangerosa’s link about AUP conditions, that was in post #261. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/299 "2021-01-16T19:21:34Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > you You neither quoted nor tagged, so this mystery “you” doesn’t likely know you responded. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2021, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/300 "2021-01-16T19:51:36Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Information is either true or untrue. (Guessing that I am the “you” referent …) Maybe. (Very meta that intro comment. 🙂) Information may be “true” or “untrue” but our individual beliefs and the matching of those beliefs with some objective reality, each, may not always overlap. There are, I am quite sure, beliefs you hold with absolute confidence as “true” that I hold with equal confidence as “false” . The converse as well. And likely many more that you have absolute confidence about that I merely think of “likely true” but with some doubts reserved, pathologic skeptic that I am. History is full of times that those in charge of access to information felt 100% confidence that their belief of what was “true” was 100% accurate, and that any speech to the contrary was dangerous disinformation. Usually their word for such disinformation was “heresy”, sometimes “treason”, and they justified suppression of it as “factually wrong, and demonstrably dangerous”. Putin takes the same position when he suppresses dissidents by any means needed … most ideas suppressed through the years were suppressed because they were deemed both false and dangerous by those with power at the time. Of course it likely is true that some of what was suppressed _was_ both those things! But obviously not all. Slowing down disinformation and preventing the stoking up of the credulous is something I see as a necessary public good. AND I see history as full of examples such power abused and dissent suppressed, including within our country. I would personally hope for caution that accomplishing the former does not enable the latter in the future. And I’d be _especially_ concerned about those who claim they want to control expression on the basis of “moral principles, ones that society in general at least claims to hold”. Much of the harm in history was done by those with that as justification. Nothing should trigger off alarm bells more than that claim. > [@DrDeth](#): > > I thought this wasnt gonna be about the 1st Ad? It wasn’t but some keep missing the memo! > [@Kimstu](#): > > If you’re referring to the link in my post #268, I was! Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2021, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/301 "2021-01-17T17:13:29Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > > [@DemonTree](#): > > > > My employer can’t fire me for voting for the wrong party, but if I annoy someone on Twitter, they can go to the police and accuse me of a ‘hate incident’, and it will be recorded with no evidence required and no requirement to inform me. > > You’ll have to actually give an example of this, and what the consequences to you are if you are never even informed. > > I mean, I would assume that the evidence would be the actual words that you used, right? So, what do you mean by no evidence? By no evidence, I mean all that is required is for someone to complain about something you’ve written. There is no objective standard, no trial to decide if you are guilty of anything. > If you post something on social media which someone complains to the police about, then it may well be recorded on the police system as a non-crime hate incident. This means that even if no crime has been committed, the fact that you were complained about will be recorded on the police computer. As for the consequences, it could affect your chances of getting certain jobs: > These sorts of incidents are not crimes and will not show up on a basic disclosure check. This level of DBS check only shows your current, unspent convictions and cautions. A non-crime incident is by definition not a crime, so won’t appear. Standard disclosures may show older convictions too, if the police feel that they are relevant to the job under consideration. However, the real issue might be with jobs which require an enhanced disclosure. This is the most detailed level of disclosure, and the Police look at everything on their database about you, whether that is convictions, cautions, or intelligence such as a recorded non-crime hate incident. Source: > **[Social Media and DBS Checks](https://crbdirect.org.uk/social-media-and-dbs-checks/)** > > Most people are aware that anything they post on a public feed on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or similar might come back to haunt them when applying for a new job. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Uh, I think you two may be talking past each other Perhaps you are right. What I’m saying is that Trump breaking the Twitter TOS gave then a reason to ban him, but it wasn’t the immediate cause. It’s like any situation where rules are selectively enforced, eg a corrupt regime where the dictators friends are only prosecuted for their crimes when they fall from favour. Were they prosecuted because they committed crimes, or because of the dictator’s disfavour? I guess you could say both. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Again, are you sure you understood him correctly? The government is not doing anything to you if the social media company decides to ban you from its platform. As I see it there are two different factors being mixed up here: government vs private actors, and punishing someone for speech vs deplatforming/stopping other people hearing that speech. I was trying to separate out if @k9bfriender objects to the government suppressing speech because it’s the government, or whether he specifically objects to punishing people for speech but not to deplatforming, whoever does the deplatforming - or some combination of the two. Hence me asking if he objects to the government suppressing speech but not punishing you for it. Does that make more sense? > [@Kimstu](#): > > You may say (in your fancypants English accent 😜 ), “Well what does it matter who’s taking the action, if the consequence in both cases is to reduce the individual’s effective ability to be heard?” But over on this side of the pond, it matters a great deal. I’m afraid I don’t have the posh accent. But yes, I can’t understand why if the consequences are the same, you think it matters so much who is taking the action. Perhaps in the past only the government had that much power, but that is not necessarily the case today. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330.md?page=16)