BY JOHN K. WILSON
The attack on the Capitol by Trump terrorists which led to five deaths was a shocking, horrifying crime. Trump and his supporters deserve the strongest condemnation for their role in fabricating a lie about the election results and then calling upon a mob to fight for a coup to overthrow the new government.
Some people have concluded that the Trump terrorism means we must reverse our commitment to free expression–that since Trump has regularly used social media and disinformation to help inspire his terrorist mob, we must move to stop him with censorship.
I strongly disagree. The lesson to learn from Trump and his terrorists is not that we must embrace censorship, but that we must endorse free expression now more than ever. The belief that we should silence and punish fake news is the dogma of Donald Trump, and we must never embrace his authoritarian values.
While most of the current deplatforming debate is about social media, it’s not hard to see similar arguments about free speech on college campuses. If Twitter should ban Trump and his supporters, why shouldn’t colleges do the same?
For five years, I have consistently and loudly denounced Donald Trump. Trump is a pathological liar, a white supremacist, a misogynist, a rapist, a bigot, a babbling moron, a morally decrepit scumbag, a con artist, a deranged megalomaniac, a conspiracy theorist, a crook, and a genuinely evil person who not merely the worst president in American history, but also the worst person ever to be president. I believe Trump should be impeached and removed from office because he is a dangerous, unstable person with enormous power who tried to stage a coup and steal an election.
And yet, I believe Trump and his sycophants should not be banned–not from social media, not from the internet, not from colleges, not from anywhere.
Trump’s ban from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and other tech giants is the decision of a private company. But it is still censorship–censorship is a broad term that goes far beyond what must be protected by the First Amendment. When private universities violate academic freedom and fire professors for their political views, we call it censorship. Those universities are private corporations that should not be controlled by the government, but they still deserve condemnation.
When Zoom and YouTube (owned by Google) banned campus events featuring a Palestinian terrorist, it shocked and angered progressives who fear the power of tech companies to silence criticism of the status quo. The tech deplatforming of Trump and his supporters is a dangerous precedent that will be used to censor leftwing radicals for years to come whenever someone makes an over-the-top comment on Twitter or if some violent incident occurs.
Even before the Capitol attack, Trump was inspiring many of his opponents to abandon free speech. A New York Times feature that appeared on the day of the Capitol attack asked, “Have Trump’s Lies Wrecked Free Speech?” It quoted Robert Post, who noted that before the internet, “People were always crazy, but they couldn’t find each other, they couldn’t talk and disperse their craziness.” Does Post actually believe that people with crazy views could not disperse their craziness before the internet? Consider the crazy idea of racism. Was there no racism until the internet was invented, because this crazy idea couldn’t be dispersed? I can imagine some version of Post in the 1860s complaining that we need to censor the printing presses and the mail because the Civil War would never have happened without this technology. The internet did not create crazy people. The internet revealed the fact that crazy people were always here.
It is simply jaw-dropping to hear supposedly reasonable people argue that because the president is an authoritarian liar, we must give the government more power to censor free speech in order to stop lying. What part of “president” don’t you understand? I’m not sure which theory is more dangerously naive: The belief that Donald Trump would be unable to lie effectively if we just banned him from Twitter, or the belief that Donald Trump would never dare to censor his enemies if we undermined the First Amendment and allowed the government to repress freedom.
Censorship doesn’t stop Trump terrorism. The false feelings of victimization that motivated many of the Trump terrorists would only be enhanced by censorship. And the spread of misinformation and hate by Trump would continue largely unabated. Social media move information faster and easier, but it doesn’t fundamentally transform the transmission of ideas. Unless you’re prepared to ban right-wing media networks, websites, email, rallies, books, and everything else, you won’t stop the spread of Trump’s hateful messages.
Censorship works, but it doesn’t persuade. Censorship can help silence some of the people some of the time, but it doesn’t create a positive transformation. And it certainly doesn’t stop a man with 74 million voters behind him.
Censorship never stopped Trump; it helped him. Trump became president campaigning as the “politically incorrect” fighter against liberal censors. People hate the impact of Trump, they see his effective use of social media, and they imagine that censorship would have saved us all this, they think that if Twitter had banned Trump in 2015 he would have never become president. In reality, a Twitter ban would have probably generated more sympathy and support for Trump. He would have been forced to change his tactics and his toolkit, but fundamentally Trump won because his message appealed to a lot of people, not because we have too much free speech.
The call for censorship is a dangerous delusion. There are no censorship shortcuts in a democracy. You cannot solve the problem of the people believing in bad ideas by simply banishing those ideas or the platforms that permit them.
Censorship doesn’t persuade. We need to understand why so many Americans were suckered by Trump’s lies, and figure out ways to convince them to change their minds. It is a difficult project, but you cannot censor out of existence 74 million Trump voters. Powerful mass movements like the Trumpsters are not stopped by censors. You can’t even censor Trump away, since he is planning to create his own news network. One of the biggest problems we face are people living in information silos where they never encounter opposing views. Trying to banish bad ideas and deplatform bad people only increases this information segregation.
A system where censorship prevails is likely to be turned against progressive voices. Trump himself wanted to impose mass censorship by targeting “fake news” media and banning “critical race theory.” If Trump had won re-election, he likely would have greatly expanded his regime’s repression and appointed even more judges willing to ignore the First Amendment at his behest. What saved us from Trump were the institutions and principles that protect free expression, ideas so powerful that even Trump was forced to pay lip service to them and limit his ambitions to censor. The next right-wing authoritarian who follows in Trump’s footsteps might not be as incompetent as Trump.
Censoring Trump will not save us from Trumpism, and it presents serious dangers. What happens when the next violent attack is linked to some progressive movement? Are leftists prepared to ban Black Lives Matter advocates from social media and college campuses, or critics of Israel? Even if progressives can manage a little hypocrisy, will the Trump supporters who run most of America’s state legislatures be tolerant of universities that allow unpopular views now that a new standard for censorship has been established?
While censorship doesn’t change hearts and minds, it can have a powerful silencing effect. And we should fear, not advocate, the power of censorship. The lesson to learn from Donald Trump is not that we must ban bad ideas in order to stop authoritarians from rising to power. The lesson Trump provides is that we must enhance the protections of free expression to stop authoritarian-minded rulers from imposing repression.
Of course, “We Need Free Expression, Now More Than Ever”!!! And, of course, that sentiment comes up only when the Right commits some felonious action. But rarely when a professor innocently says something that can be misconstrued as a “micro-aggression” by some “SJW.”
As I always state, i am no Trumpist nor a right-wing troglodyte, but Free Expression should apply to EVERYONE, with limited exceptions — like inciting to riot. No one on the pseudo-Left is willing to cite Trump’s exact words at the demonstration: ” I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to PEACEFULLY and patriotically make your voices heard.” Where’s the incitement? If it’s in the minds of the extremists who came there looking to loot and disrupt, then how can the Prez be blamed? He told them to be peaceful. Their voices were legal until someone broke windows and gained illegal entry.
This is the same B.S. used against Trump over the Charlottesville “some good people on both sides” misquote. He was referring to both sides of the issue of keeping or removing the statue of Robt. E. Lee, not white nationalists vs. BLM.
Trump has actually said enough things that are exaggerations or outright lies. Some of them may even be impeachable words or deeds; however, Ukraine and the Capitol riot do not fit that legal threshold. So, there’s no need to make up stuff against him. especially if it may lead to yet another national crisis..
A fair-minded Marxist — perhaps the last of a dying breed? .
John asks, “If Twitter should ban Trump and his supporters, why shouldn’t colleges do the same?” Well, how about because Twitter is a private for-profit business (not an educational institution) and colleges are either, if public, arms of government or, if private, non-profit entities dedicated, as the AAUP has claimed since 1915, to the common good as a public trust? Twitter’s purpose is to make money by providing a platform for people to exchange information, opinions and ideas within guidelines established by the company. Colleges, however, exist to discover and transmit knowledge and learning. Their purposes are different. And neither exists mainly to provide a totally open forum for all views about all topics at all times without restriction. And not all decisions not to publish, not to broadcast, or not to host a blog or permit an offensive posting — or, for that matter, not to teach — amount to censorship.
While I can’t say I fully agree with him, Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark did a good job today of explaining the other side of the argument, at least with respect to social media (https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/we-need-more-social-media-bans). He writes:
“Twitter and Facebook are American companies. They are headquartered in America. They are subject to the laws of the United States. They have a vested interest in the United States continuing to exist as a stable democracy, because that means that these companies will be subject to the rule of law—which will allow them to operate in an environment that is reasonably predictable and rational.
“Over the last few months, many people—including the president of the United States—have used these platforms to advocate for an overturning of the government. They have used these platforms to organize an attempt to throw out the results of a free and fair election and install Donald Trump as an illegitimate, autocratic leader.
“Had this attempt been successful, it would have been the end of American democracy and, consequently, the failure of the rule of law. This would have had dire consequences for Twitter, Facebook, and every company in America because it would have meant that they were no longer subject to the predictable process of the rule of law, but rather existing at the pleasure of a strongman.
“Should Twitter and Facebook be forced to provide their free services to people trying to destroy the government which provides stability for their business?
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact] and neither are the Terms of Service.
“The arguments against de-platforming are not strong.
“The first is that it is tantamount to “censorship.” This is obviously immaterial—private companies are not compelled to promote speech and do not have the power to stop speech. Censorship is a government function.
“The second is that tech companies do not apply standards with perfect uniformity. Here is the thing about “standards” created by private companies: They are not “laws.” A law must be applied uniformly because it is backstopped by the full power of the state. A “standard” created by a private company is nothing more than a guideline used to explain what are, by definition, subjective judgments.
“What’s more, these “standards” do not exist in order to protect the imaginary “rights” of individual users.
“They exist in order to make the experience of the wider community better by discouraging users whose behavior is detrimental to the platform.
“It’s best to think of terms of service agreements less like “laws” and more like player contracts in the NFL: They are inherently one-sided and subject to alteration.
“The third objection is a question of reasonable accommodation: If Twitter kicks Donald Trump off, does he have recourse to other forms of communication?
“The answer here is clearly: yes.
“While Trump complains about not being able to tweet, here are some of the ways he could communicate with the public:
–Walk into the press briefing room at literally any minute of the day or night and start talking.
–Call in to Fox, or Newsmax, or OAN—again, at any moment.
–Write an op-ed and send it to the Wall Street Journal to run on their opinion page.
–Tape a video, or a podcast, and post it on WhiteHouse.gov.
“These modes of communication require more than an iPhone and two thumbs, but not much more. And their potential reach is roughly equivalent. This is little more than a case of Trump asking one bakery to make him a cake for White Pride Day, being refused, and having to walk across the street to another bakery, which readily obliges him.
“The most salient underlying fact of the internet is that it reduces marginal cost to zero. And because of this, the reasonable accommodations available for Trump are available to basically everyone.
“You got kicked off of Twitter?
“Start a blog. Publish until your heart’s content. Anyone with a phone, anywhere in the world, can read your Very Important Thoughts.
“And these reasonable accommodations persist pretty far down the stack.
“What if you are so odious that your blog’s web host kicks you off? You buy a box and set up your own server in your closet. It requires slightly more effort than putting a site on GoDaddy, but it’s neither expensive nor technically difficult. May I suggest the Hooli Box 3, Signature Edition? It’s a great value.
“What if you’re trying to monetize your audience and you are such a deplorable that Stripe, PayPal, Square, Visa, and MasterCard refuse to serve you? How ever will you capture revenue? It’s impossible!
“Oh, wait. It’s not. You can use bitcoin. Or you can just have your users mail you a check. Like everyone in the world did, for decades, until about 5 minutes ago.
“In order to lose the ability to make reasonable accommodations you need to get all the way down to the level of ISP’s and banks refusing service.”
In today’s New York Times, Michelle Goldberg also agrees that the social media companies were entitled and wise to remove Trump and many of his Q-Anon allies but raises legitimate concerns about the power of the companies. She writes:
“As a non-libertarian, however, I find myself both agreeing with how technology giants have used their power in this case, and disturbed by just how awesome their power is. Trump deserved to be deplatformed. Parler, a social network favored by Trumpists that teemed with threats against the president’s enemies, deserved to be kicked off Amazon’s web-hosting service. But it’s dangerous to have a handful of callow young tech titans in charge of who has a megaphone and who does not.
“In banning Trump, the big social media companies simply started treating him like everyone else. Lots of people, including prominent Trump supporters like Alex Jones, Roger Stone and Steve Bannon, have been ousted from Facebook, Twitter or both for inciting violence, threatening journalists and spreading hatred. Trump, who has done all of those things, had until this past week been given special privileges as president.
“There’s no First Amendment problem with taking these privileges away; Americans don’t have a constitutional right to have their speech disseminated by private companies. On the contrary, the First Amendment gives people and companies alike the freedom not to associate with speech they abhor.”
On the other hand, she continues:
“It’s great that Trump’s poisonous presence has been curtailed. Private companies have shown themselves able to act far more nimbly than our government, imposing consequences on a would-be tyrant who has until now enjoyed a corrosive degree of impunity. But in doing so, these companies have also shown a power that goes beyond that of many nation-states, one they apply capriciously and without democratic accountability.”
The solution, however, in Goldberg’s view (and mine) is neither censorship nor the kind of “anything goes” free expression that John seems to embrace. “In the long term, tech monopolies need to be broken up, as Elizabeth Warren has proposed. Singer described the tech barons who finally took action against Trump after enabling him for years as “rulers of a kingdom that abdicated their responsibility for a long time.” This time, with Trump, they ruled judiciously. But they shouldn’t rule over as much as they do.”