Silencing Trump: Free Speech and Democracy Online
Update 14 Jan: Jack Dorsey stated banning Donald Trump was right but that it sets a dangerous precedent.
In 2020, I wrote a dissertation exploring the tension between free speech and disinformation. I tried to gauge how social media firms might balance the two without infringing on the former. Primarily, I examined the UK government’s Online Harms White Paper (set to become the Online Safety Bill) but the issue is global.
President Donald Trump’s recent suspensions brings the debate back into focus. Social media companies have put themselves in the inevitable position of being arbiters of truth and what qualifies as acceptable speech online. Whether this should be so and how they can distinguish harmful speech remains to be seen. Upon further analysis the problem may go well beyond how social media companies regulate speech online.
The Principle of Free Speech
Around the world, democracies accept that citizens should have the ability to speak freely without censorship. In America, this is guaranteed by the First Amendment. In Europe, it is enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The right to freedom of speech/expression is not absolute though, meaning there are exceptions to the rule. In America, among others, these include incitement, defamation or where freedom of expression loses to a different fundamental interest. Here in Europe, there are broad categories wherein freedom of expression can be subverted including, matters of national security, public safety and where the rights of others are concerned. There is a further caveat that such restrictions are ‘prescribed by law, and necessary, for a legitimate aim.’
Simply put, in democracies, a variety of speech is allowed and there is arguably a high threshold to meet before free speech can be restricted. Nothing states that only one type of speech is permissible or that it must be truthful. It follows that offline (aka the real world) people are entitled to hold false beliefs and opinions which they are then free to share with others.
Regulating Free Speech: Offline vs Online
Offline, general principles of free speech are applied in very specific ways by courts around the world. So when it comes to policing speech offline, the boundary between free speech and harm is determined in law. If someone says something offensive or harmful, a certain threshold of harm must be reached before free speech can be restricted. Essentially, merely offending people would not itself justify restricting someone’s right to free speech. Equally, lying would not itself justify such a restriction unless it amounted to some identifiable harm.
The position is vastly different online, where free speech is determined by social media platforms. What’s said online and how this is enforced is laid out in the platforms’ policies. Content is not adjudged in court but by platforms themselves via a combination of algorithms and human moderators in accordance with their policies. Essentially, platforms make and police the rules themselves. And they are free to change or revise them as they go.
Trump’s suspension highlights how often these policies change and that they can be enforced inconsistently. Many might argue that some if not most of Trump’s statements prior to what is now defined as ‘incitement of violence’ were in some way harmful to democracy, yet they were permitted. Similarly, the online groups and boards which have enabled the belief that there was rampant election fraud online existed long before last week’s assault on the US Capitol.
When did social media companies decide that enough was enough? When did companies truly accept that the manner in which some people used their platforms was to the detriment of democracies or societies? The answers to these questions may be further complicated when you remember profit-driven companies’ sometimes act only when politically or economically motivated.
Disinformation and Conspiracy Theories
Disinformation is one of the challenges to enforcing free speech online. Disinformation can itself encompass varying types of speech and activity online. Should it vary by platform? Who should define it? Does satire count? Should it?
In 2016, I wrote a satirical post for the Huffington Post, ‘Is there a loophole that could actually keep Obama in the White House?’ It went viral and was picked up by major news outlets who hadn’t bothered to read it (the content indicated Obama couldn’t do so). I was widely decried simply because had fallen victim to a clickbait headline and jumped to conclusions without actually engaging with the content.
Online, whether the content itself true seems to bear little importance. Instead of starting from a position of shared or identifiable facts, one can choose the truth that suits them. Irrespective of political allegiance, one can dive into a filter bubble and have their own beliefs and ‘truths’ mirrored back.
On the other hand, how do you manage those with honest beliefs in false statements made online? As the recent storm of the US Capitol demonstrates, many people support QAnon, which broadly believes Trump is the sole protector of the nation, protecting it from ‘elite Satan-worshipping paedophiles in government, business and the media.’ That the QAnon believers may be a minority does not in anyway diminish their belief even if social media companies choose to prevent them from sharing those opinions online.
The use of filter bubbles and social media platforms to spread disinformation to incite violence is not new Very little distinguishes the QAnon conspiracy from the 2016 Pizzagate conspiracy. The latter also ended in violence, albeit less deadly, after an armed man drove across the country to Washington DC and opened fire in a restaurant. He didn’t do this because he was instructed to do so online. Instead, he operated on a real belief that he would disrupt a paedophile ring operating in the basement.
Can the comments made on social media platforms solely account for the actions — violent or otherwise — of autonomous individuals?
Arbitrating truth
The harrowing images of rioters storming the US Capitol seem to have renewed the focus on managing disinformation online. But it is worth asking whether restricting disinformation or false speech online would actually influence a person’s core beliefs offline.
With regard to ongoing conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen, it should be noted that the baseless claims were not restricted to social media platforms. Donald Trump used around 60 lawsuits (none of which were substantiated) in his quest to support his baseless claims of election fraud. There were also countless press conferences and media appearances. More than 120 congress members and 11 Senators who supported Trump’s call to throw out the election results, which were at the time welcomed by Vice President Mike Pence.
Simply put, the disinformation campaign to create dissent stretched well beyond social media. The Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard conducted research which determined social media was but a secondary player in the 2020 disinformation campaign. It found that Trump’s manipulation of the mass media and the Republican Party’s role in emboldening him was far more impactful than social media.
The challenge to partially combat disinformation by restricting free speech online seems to be a half-baked solution. Indeed, those who support Trump and still believe the 2020 election was stolen do not necessarily accept the inverse merely because Trump was barred from some platforms. There will be other mediums and others to carry the message. They need not come directly from the President’s Twitter feed.
To bring the discussion full circle, people are free to say what they like in person. Trump’s repeated calls of election fraud began well before any ballots were cast and were not limited to social media. Video footage of his remarks were mocked on late night television, broadcast across news channels, and stamped across digital and print media. Conservative media outlets have come especially come under fire.
Free speech is protected in law but even if more of today’s speech is exercised online, it is not clear why private companies should regulate it differently. If private social media companies are permitted to take unilateral editorial decisions and censor a sitting US President — no matter the justification — those who oppose free speech will no doubt themselves be emboldened by this outcome.
Only time will tell.
