Trump v. Big Tech: First Amendment Violation or Censorship?

 Trump v. Big Tech: First Amendment Violation or Censorship?

When events happen in our lives, many of us are instinctively drawn to pointing a finger at someone (or we want to, anyway). Putting the blame on someone else makes it easier for us to cope with things that make us mad, sad, or downright scared. 

On January 8th, 2021, Twitter (owned by Jack Dorsey) permanently suspended President Donald J. Trump, after riots occurred on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. According to Twitter, the company chose to ban the president “due to the risk of further incitement of violence” (https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html). 

Immediately, there was backlash. Thousands claimed that this act was a violation of Trump’s First Amendment rights, that Big Tech is starting to chip away at our rights as United States citizens. But is it? 

In short, no. Twitter (and Facebook and Snapchat and TikTok and… well, you get the point) (https://www.axios.com/platforms-social-media-ban-restrict-trump-d9e44f3c-8366-4ba9-a8a1-7f3114f920f1.html) has not violated Trump’s First Amendment rights. However, this act by Big Tech is one of the biggest acts of censorship in recent years. 

***

The Six Freedoms of the First Amendment highlight the basics of our freedoms that are protected by the First Amendment. Freedom of Speech, arguably one of the most discussed facets of the First Amendment, is the basis for the argument regarding Trump and his Twitter account.

I’ll introduce you to this point: Without government involvement, no Constitutional claim can be made because only the government can violate your constitutional rights; therefore the First Amendment doesn’t reach private actors. Twitter is a private company, not a company owned by the government. Therefore, no one can claim that the act of banning Trump’s Twitter account is a violation of the First Amendment. If the U.S. government decided to permit Trump from a government-owned platform, this would be considered a violation of his First Amendment rights. It also would be considered a negative right (something the government can’t do). 

After the decision to censor Trump’s Twitter account, many U.S. citizens chose to create Parler accounts, which is a platform similar to Twitter’s. In a (very!) short amount of time, Big Tech decided to eliminate Parler from the App Store, Google Play Store, and Amazon Cloud Drive. 

***

I’m incredibly afraid of this. I worry that Big Tech will increase its power to new, astronomical heights. While these few but incredibly powerful companies receive funding from various political sources and therefore often have ties to certain beliefs, it is completely inappropriate to censor those who disagree. 

This relates to one of the three Bedrock Principles-Freedom of the Press is a “fundamental personal right”, not an institutional one. If groups/individuals want to express their ideas (while understanding that their First Amendment rights aren’t absolute and that the First Amendment is not a shield against laws of general applicability), they should have the places to do so, without fear of censorship. 

***

So now what? The Legislative branch is currently deciding whether or not Trump has engaged in actions involving incitement. Senators are working to decide whether or not Trump's actions through his Twitter account and speeches are considered protected speech or unprotected action. It'll be a bumpy road toward the decision, but it will definitely be one for the history books. 

Sources

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

https://www.axios.com/platforms-social-media-ban-restrict-trump-d9e44f3c-8366-4ba9-a8a1-7f3114f920f1.html