Freedom of Speech

 The first amendment.  

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.

There are many today complaining that Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites banning President Trump from participation have violated his free speech rights. They also raise issues regarding the social media network Parler being removed by Amazon Web Services as a violation of their free speech rights. I think they misunderstand the nature of their free speech rights. I would suggest they read about Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. I suggest the following book.  “The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind- and Changed the History of Free Speech in America.” The author is Thomas Healy.  

The First Amendment limits the power of Congress to make laws that abridge the freedom of speech. It does not limit the ability of private companies like Facebook or Twitter to limit the nature of speech allowed to be posted on their respective sites. I learned  that lesson a couple of weeks ago when Facebook determined that a comment I made violated their “community standards”.  I had, in a moment of intense stupidity, decided to argue with a Trump supporter who claimed Melania Trump had more class than any other First Lady in history. I went to Google images and selected an image of the First Lady when she had posed as a nude model. Facebook was swift to point out the error of my way and blocked the comment. I did not protest that my free speech rights had been violated. I understood that I had agreed to limits when I decided to join their social media platform and I had violated the limits I had agreed to follow. I would propose when President Trump was banned from those social media platforms he had done the same. 

I will close by saying in 1919 when Justice Holmes wrote his dissent free speech rights were seen in an entirely different light.  Here is a brief quote from the book that may shed light on some of those limits at that time.

“So when the Court heard arguments in the anarchists’ case, few people expected Holmes to side with the defendants. But something had changed. Instead of voting with the majority, Holmes said the convictions should be reversed. The defendants had no intent to undermine the fight against Germany, he explained. They were merely upset with President Wilson’s decision to intervene in the Russian Revolution. Besides, he argued, their speech was protected by the First Amendment. This last point was no small matter. In spite of its seemingly clear command—“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”—the First Amendment at that time was still largely an unfulfilled promise. The Supreme Court itself had never ruled in favor of a free speech claim, and lower courts had approved all manner of speech restrictions, including the censorship of books and films, the prohibition of street corner speeches, and assorted bans on labor protests, profanity, and commercial advertising. Even criticism of government officials could be punished, the courts had ruled, if it threatened public order and morality. But now, with the country gripped by fear of the communist threat, Holmes was proposing something radical: an expansive interpretation of the First Amendment that would protect all but the most immediately dangerous speech.”