- OSHA’s ‘Emergency’ Vaccine Mandate Exceeds Its Power And Is Dangerously Totalitarian - November 16, 2021
- Big Tech Censorship Is an Assault on Individual Liberty - September 7, 2021
- Modest Warming Brings Fewer Idaho Climate Extremes - January 13, 2020
Most state legislatures are actively considering laws to protect their constituents’ online free speech from Big Tech censorship. In response, Big Tech increasingly advances an argument designed to appeal to libertarians and other supporters of limited government. Big Tech claims state policymakers should not safeguard their constituents’ free-speech rights because doing so would be an assault on free markets and Big Tech’s property rights. Big Tech’s reasoning is seriously flawed and undermines, rather than promotes, individual liberty.
Big Tech’s Ideological Hypocrisy
Before addressing the serious flaws in Big Tech’s arguments, it is worth noting the hypocrisy of Big Tech’s decision to assert libertarian, free-market principles in defense of censoring Americans’ speech. Big Tech often claims it has property rights and free-market rights that should be immune from government intervention. In particular, these businesses claim the government has no right to meddle in the choices private companies make regarding their businesses, including decisions about the kinds of material permitted on social media platforms.
Less than a decade ago, however, Big Tech threw a major public relations temper tantrum when state legislators refused to force other businesses to do what Big Tech wanted. Specifically, Google, Facebook, and other tech companies publicly berated the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and pulled their funding from ALEC after the group passed model legislation opposing renewable power mandates on electricity providers and consumers. (See, for example, “Google cites climate change as tech titans quit ALEC.”)
Big Tech had no qualms then about using government to force other businesses to engage in specific practices that it found politically favorable and other companies opposed or found cumbersome. Yet Big Tech is now claiming that it has inviolable “free-market property rights” to avoid government safeguarding free speech on its platforms. This is the very definition of hypocrisy, and it serves as proof that Big Tech does not truly care about free-market principles—except, of course, when those principles may be twisted in ways that benefit large technology companies
The Primary Purpose of Limited Government
To assess whether state governments may rightfully protect online free speech from tech censorship, it is imperative to look at first principles. The founders mapped out the central purpose and role of government in a free society: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . . ”
The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that we have unalienable rights preceding the existence of government, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech is certainly among those rights. The founders emphasized that no entity may justly take away those rights, as they have been provided by God or nature.
To be sure, the founders were deeply concerned about unchecked government, which often poses significant threats to people’s rights. That is why the founders created the First Amendment, which explicitly safeguards free speech from government suppression.
But the Declaration also acknowledges and clearly implies that non-government entities may threaten the rights of the people as well. To secure our unalienable rights from private-actor threats is the primary reason why governments are instituted among men. That is why the founders insisted “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men . . .”
Government exists to protect the people’s rights from all abuses, not just those posed by authoritarian governments and threats from foreign countries.
Big Tech Embodies the Threat the Founders Feared
Big Tech censorship is precisely the kind of infringement on our unalienable rights that the founders feared and desired to prevent.
Free speech is one of Americans’ most vital and sacred rights. Social media is the primary means by which Americans today engage in free speech and share political, cultural, and religious views with one another. Social media has replaced the physical town square, neighborhood pubs, and even the telephone for this purpose.
Over the past decade, a few large entities have gained monopoly control over social media platforms. As of July 2021, Facebook and its popular subsidiary Instagram control 80 percent of social media traffic in the United States. The top three social media companies control 97 percent of social media traffic in the United States.
Being a large and market-dominant entity does not necessarily equate to being a bad actor, of course. Indeed, a primary reason companies become large and market-dominant is because they are better than their competitors at providing a product or service that consumers value. Companies marked by this kind of success typically offer a net societal benefit, not a net societal harm. A very serious problem emerges, however, when a market-dominant company, or cartel of companies, wields its power in a manner and with the purpose and impact of suppressing Americans’ unalienable rights.
It is incontrovertible that Big Tech is wielding its power with the purpose of suppressing open sharing of political, cultural, and religious views of citizens with whom it does not agree. Nor is it possible to question whether Big Tech companies have been successful in that endeavor. Big Tech has censored and blocked scientists from presenting evidence that COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory, medical doctors from discussing the medical benefits of hydroxychloroquine, pastors from presenting online church services, climate scientists from making the scientific case against an asserted climate crisis, media outlets from sharing their reporting about well-documented scandals involving Hunter and Joe Biden, and everyday Americans from sharing their own views or forwarding the views of others to their friends, family, and acquaintances.
The Enforcement Arm of Government Narratives
Big Tech has become the enforcement arm of government-sanctioned and government-disfavored speech. Big Tech eagerly restricts free speech on behalf of the government, often following calls by politicians to engage in such activities.
Big Tech suppression of speech questioning government policy is no accident. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted in a July 15 press briefing that the Biden Administration “is in regular touch with the social media platforms” and is “flagging posts for Facebook.” Psaki added that Big Tech should coordinate censorship efforts so that when a person is censored and banned by one social media platform, all social media platforms censor and ban that person.
Similarly, when Big Tech censors online speech and bans a person from posting speech in the future, it often justifies this censorship and banishment based on the user posting material questioning or contradicting a government narrative. Big Tech has explicitly justified censorship decisions based on the speech in question contradicting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc. Facebook, for example, acknowledges removing more than 18 million posts that contradict government narratives regarding COVID-19.
Big Tech’s Arguments Fall Short
Big Tech raises several arguments against government protection of online speech. Each misses the mark.
1) There are no reasonable social media alternatives.
Big Tech frequently argues that people who don’t like censorship of their online speech can find another platform that won’t censor speech. That argument ignores the fact that three social media entities control 97 percent of social media traffic and coordinate with each other to censor free speech. Telling Americans they can simply join some other social media platform with only a very small number of users is like government assigning people to an intellectual ghetto. Excessively burdening free speech to the point that speech is being largely suppressed violates unalienable free-speech rights and is morally indefensible, whether perpetrated by government or by private actors.
2) Our free-speech rights are not subject to the whims of industry.
Big Tech frequently argues that if people don’t like having their speech censored, they should start their own companies or patiently wait for a speech-respecting social media platform to arrive. Our free-speech rights, however, are not subject to whether some entity can somehow, someday, do better than Parler, which made great strides in that arena until the Big Tech cartel acted in concert to destroy the platform.
3) A hoped-for future of free speech does not justify speech suppression today.
Big Tech also argues that MySpace once held a large market share before Facebook knocked it off its perch. Big Tech tells us there is no reason to act against Facebook and the other dominant Big Tech actors because some other entities are likely to someday displace Facebook and the others. But the argument that there may be a successor to Facebook someday, that may or may not censor free speech, does nothing to protect our unalienable free-speech rights today. Our unalienable rights cannot rightfully be taken away for a century, a decade, a year, or even a day.
4) Private companies do not have a right to suppress unalienable free speech.
Big Tech often argues that free speech protections only apply to the government. The founders made it clear in the Declaration of Independence, however, that private actors are no more entitled to suppress our unalienable free-speech rights than government is. The fact that Facebook and other Big Tech entities are private companies making money by conquering social media does not mean they can exercise their power to suppress Americans’ unalienable free-speech rights. When Facebook and other Big Tech entities chose to conduct business and gain monopoly market share in the primary venue by which Americans exercise their free-speech rights, those entities knew or should have known that Americans’ free-speech rights remain in force on social media, no matter who controls the market.
5) There is no “free-speech right” to suppress other people’s speech.
Big Tech frequently argues they have a free-speech right to suppress other people’s free speech. That is head-spinning, Orwellian logic. No American has a “free-speech right” to shut down another person’s free speech. Similarly, Big Tech has no “free-speech right” to shut down free speech in the primary venue by which Americans share their political, cultural, and religious speech and ideas.
6) There is no legitimate slippery slope argument.
Big Tech argues that state legislation to protect online free speech would force newspaper editorial boards to post all submissions and points of view on an issue, require bakers to bake cakes with any message any customer wishes, no matter how offensive, etc. That is simply false. Legislation to protect online free speech can and should be crafted to apply narrowly to user-based social media platforms with dominant market share. The primary purpose of newspapers is for the news entity to report the news and share its editorial views. It is a publisher, not an open forum. The primary purpose of cake-bakers is to make delicious desserts. By contrast, the primary purpose of social media platforms is for the users themselves to share their views with each other. Those would be the only entities impacted by state legislation protecting online free speech.
7) Social media platforms should still be permitted to censor sexual obscenity and excessive violence.
Big Tech argues that legislation protecting online free speech would mean social media would be inundated with pornography and calls for violence. However, Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which preempts state laws, explicitly allows social media platforms to censor sexual obscenity and excessive violence. Properly crafted state legislation could explicitly confirm social media platforms’ ability to censor such material as well.
The safeguarding of individual liberty requires government to secure our unalienable rights from all threats, including threats from non-government actors. Indeed, the founders clearly explained that this is the primary reason legitimate governments exist.
Today, a small number of giant corporations have secured monopoly power over the primary means by which Americans exercise their free-speech rights. Even worse, they have nefariously and dangerously used that power to suppress free speech, all while benefiting from special government rules, regulations, and tax laws that have allowed them to make billions of dollars.
State legislators not only can take immediate and powerful action to secure our free-speech rights from abusive Big Tech censorship, but they must also take such action if they are to properly fulfill their duty to protect the rights of the citizens of their states.
[First published at American Greatness.]