By David K. Shipler
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. --The First Amendment
The
First Amendment restricts what government may do, not what may be done by private
entities such as Twitter and Facebook. So the internet platforms that have
banned Donald Trump and many of his conspiracy-minded supporters do not run
afoul of the Constitution. They are private companies, no more prohibited from
silencing unwelcome viewpoints than any printed newspaper would be.
But American society needs to be
careful about privately-imposed censorship—for that’s what it is, no matter how
justified in the current state of emergency. As seen since 9/11, practices
adopted to counter threats can spill
beyond the immediate risk, stifle diverse opinions, and outlast the period of
danger. It’s a tricky balancing act to preserve freedom of speech and also
contain wildfires of lies and verbal extremes that ignite violence.
The real conspiracies—not those
fabricated but those organizing armed attacks—need communication to recruit and
plan, so disrupting open lines of contact can impede them for a while. Yet in
its quest for security against what might become a burgeoning insurgency, the
country could harm itself. Extremist movements are already being driven underground
to fester out of sight, elusive to law enforcement. If the parameters of
acceptable debate are narrowed and marginal ideas are exiled from the public
square, the society cannot be self-correcting. That depends on robust
discussion across a broad spectrum, facilitated these days on the internet.
The map of free speech in the
United States is defined by two overlays: fairly clear legal limits imposed by
government on the one hand, and on the other, shifting boundaries drawn
informally in the larger culture of peer groups, employers, news organizations,
social media, and so on.
On the governmental level, the law’s limits on speech are so minimal, so distant from the places where most people go, that the landscape of freedom is probably the most expansive of any country in the world. It is very hard to break the law by merely speaking, although perhaps President Trump managed when he fired up his supporters before some of them stormed the Capitol.
