WDMA Prop C

Opinion: Efforts to compel social media ‘fairness’ go afoul on freedom of expression

by | Aug 21, 2019 | Opinion

The White House’s effort to draft an executive order to limit social media companies’ alleged biases against conservative voices gets everything wrong about freedom of expression. 

News of the proposed order, which is titled “Protecting Americans from Online Censorship,” emerged late last week. The order appears to suffer from a case of First Amendment amnesia. Even the name of the order shows a misunderstanding of freedom of expression, since the First Amendment protects us from government, not corporate, censorship.

The notion that social media companies can be compelled by the White House to make their online forums fair requires that the government can force private corporations to communicate information. This would set a dangerous precedent when it comes to freedom of expression, particularly since the government would decide what “fair” means.

The order appears most concerned with whether companies such as Facebook and Twitter are fair in their moderating practices. The problem is, social media companies do not have to be fair in how they moderate, and the government cannot compel them to do so.

Confusing social media companies with public spaces — such as parks and sidewalks —the order mistakenly claims jurisdiction where it has none. Public spaces are held in trust by the government and generally cannot limit expression because of the ideas that are expressed.  The online forums Facebook and Twitter provide are more comparable to a supermarket, shopping mall, or one of the president’s golf courses. The corporations own the spaces, which remain private. If customers dislike the space, they can show their displeasure by shopping — or golfing — elsewhere.

The First Amendment does not apply to private spaces, since it only protects us from government restrictions on expression. If a TV network removes a show because one of the actors shares racist ideas, this is not government censorship. It’s a business decision. When Facebook or Twitter blocks someone or removes a post, however fair or unfair, that is not a First Amendment concern.

When Florida created a law that mandated newspapers publish responses by those who were criticized in its pages, the Supreme Court struck down the law. Justices realized that for the law to work, the government would have to force the newspaper to publish certain ideas.

In 2010, justices reaffirmed and expanded the rights of corporations to “speak” in Citizens United v. FEC.

In June, a federal appeals court reaffirmed in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump that the president cannot block those he disagrees with from his Twitter account. The court said the spaces remain private, not public. The judges emphasized “nor do we consider or decide whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms.” 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the executive order’s primary vehicle for resolving the perception that conservative voices are being censored. That’s ironic since most of the complaints about this matter have been shared via social media.

CDA 230 protects social media companies from liability for how their services are used. If a person uses Facebook to commit a crime, for example, the company generally is not liable. CDA 230, while it has its flaws, has played an important role in the how the Internet has developed. The law does not require social media companies to be neutral or fair. Attempting to refashion CDA 230 into a tool that would allow the government to reach into online spaces and control what is and is not published is antithetical to freedom expression.

The order also proposes the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission develop policies to ensure social media companies are fair in how they moderate content. While the Supreme Court has upheld the FCC’s power to limit indecent content on the public airwaves and the FTC to monitor advertising claims, Trump’s executive order could transform these entities into a “Ministry of Truth” — George Orwell’s fictional government commission for propaganda in “1984.” The order would take the FCC and FTC well beyond their intended scopes.

If finalized and signed, the order would create a dangerous precedent for any organization that publishes information. If the government feels a news organization is biased, could the order be extended to compel “balance” for them, too? When a different party occupies the White House would the order be used to compel social media to publish more liberal ideas? 

The corporate system that creates and maintains online forums we use to send and receive ideas has its share of flaws. Crafting an executive order to attempt to compel the custodians of these spaces to be more “fair,” however, tramples all over the crucial boundaries we have constructed between government powers and private freedoms.

For more stories like this, see the Aug. 21 issue or subscribe online.

By Jared Schroeder • Assistant Professor of Journalism at SMU

0 Comments

Related News

What grandmothers do

What grandmothers do

By John Moore My grandmother made the best oatmeal. It was so good, it even tasted good cold. She made it each morning for my grandfather who always left some for any of his grandchildren who wanted it. I always did. There were no microwaves, so oatmeal was made on...

read more
We will reap what we sow

We will reap what we sow

By Kris Segrest When a farmer has a barren field, what does he do? He could complain about it. He could make excuses for it. He could pray about it. Yet, none of these things will help him until he plants a seed. He must get the seed in the ground to see the condition...

read more
Mow mow mow

Mow mow mow

by John Moore When I was a kid, I was the designated (fill in the blank). If the TV antenna needed turning to pick up Star Trek or Dragnet, I was the designated antenna turner. If the channel needed changing, I was the designated remote control. When the ubiquitous...

read more
What are you listening for

What are you listening for

By Ray Miranda Two guys are walking in the heart of New York City. As you can imagine they hear honking horns, the sounds of cars moving, people talking – really, just a whole at once. As one guy talks, he notices the other looks like his mind is wandering. He’s...

read more
Choose to be loved

Choose to be loved

By Lynn Burgess A verse that has been on my mind latelyis John 3:16. If you’re familiar with the bible at all, you probably know this verse… For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish...

read more
Ravages of drought not far from Texans’ minds

Ravages of drought not far from Texans’ minds

By Jeremy B. Mazur The trials of drought weave throughout the story of Texas in tales of devastation that had lasting effects on the families, businesses, and communities that survived them. These withering dry times prompted Texans to make big changes to shore up...

read more
Two guys turned 90

Two guys turned 90

This weekend I had the opportunity to celebrate two men in my life turning 90 years old.  One was my grandfather Bob Houser and the other, my friend and founding pastor Gene Getz.  These milestones gave me the opportunity to celebrate the lives of some great...

read more
Finding hope in heartache

Finding hope in heartache

I recently received a call no one ever wants to receive. My sister had been horrifically murdered at her home in South Carolina. I was stunned as I tried to process a statement that didn’t make sense to me. The next step of calling other family members to inform them...

read more
We’re global now

We’re global now

No matter how hard we try, we really can’t avoid one another. We live in a world where what takes place somewhere else on the globe has a very good chance of affecting us, along with many others. The pandemic, of course, is a useful – if sobering – example. A virus...

read more