Facebook and Instagram are removing all posts containing any “Trump speak,” and shadow-banning people
It just amazes me what Facebook and Instagram have been and are currently getting away with. Anyone who posts the recent Lara Trump interview with President Trump, or any other material that Trump speaks in – will have said posts removed, and their accounts shadow-banned, and possibly removed if they keep posting about Donald Trump.
This is Facebook friends! What an absolute slap in the face to 75 Million Americans pic.twitter.com/UtBBhyNgaQ
— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) March 31, 2021
This is beyond ridiculous that this kind of thing can happen in America. This should not happen in America period, despite the claims of clueless libtards.
But it isn’t for the reasoning that many people think – so many (I used to think so too, and I was wrong) see Facebook as a publisher and not a platform, let me explain. When dealing with the main issue here, that being Section 230, the law that protects Facebook among others – there is NO platform or publisher distinction. The publisher distinction is for print publications only, not Internet sites, and this publisher distinction is what many are trying (and wrongly so) to use as a club against Facebook and others.
Furthermore, and I’m sure this won’t be popular with some of my colleagues, the Leftists are correct in saying that Facebook and other social media platforms can do as they wish, it’s not illegal.
All sites on the Internet enjoy the same protection under Section 230, whether they be Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, blogs, online magazines, etc., it doesn’t matter. As I said, there is no distinction made concerning a platform verses a publisher, because in the online world, no such distinction exists.
Anyone on any site can publish whatever he or she likes, and they cannot be held liable for it. The caveat here is that the published content must be created by someone else. If said content is published on your site and you created it, then you can be held accountable for it. These rules do not apply to copyright infringement and a few other exceptions.
From Digital Media Law Project:
“However, Section 230 explicitly exempts from its coverage criminal law, communications privacy law, and “intellectual property claims.” In interpreting these exclusions, courts agree that Congress meant to exclude federal intellectual property claims, such as copyright and trademark, but they disagree whether state-law intellectual property claims (or claims that arguably could be classified as intellectual property claims, such as the right of publicity) are also exempted from the broad immunity protection Section 230 provides.
Finally, Section 230 does not immunize the actual creator of content. The author of a defamatory statement, whether he is a blogger, commenter, or anything else, remains just as responsible for his online statements as he would be for his offline statements.”
As previously stated, Face and Instagram have done nothing illegal in refusing to allow Trump content on their sites. However, that being said, have these two sites and many others like them done anything wrong? In my opinion, YES, without a doubt.
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to name a few all have something in common. These sites are all called social media sites. By the very name, these are obviously not news sites, blogs, forums, or any other site type. These sites are social in nature; people go to these sites for the express purpose of being social, interacting with other people. At the very least, many go to these sites to see what others are saying, and to gather the “popular news”.
The “popular news” is another problem all in itself. When anyone goes to Facebook or Twitter, and MANY people use these two sites as their news source, they are seeing ONLY what FB and Twitter want them to see. This is exactly how FB was able to sway election results because they have the power to change opinion. Ok, granted, if you accept FB and Twitters’ allowed opinions and news as your only source to be informed, well you are a pretty shallow thinker and likely have little understanding of what really goes on in the world. Yet this works – and FB and Twitter are well aware of this.
The laws need to be changed concerning social media platforms. These websites, and any other sites like them that allow public posting of content by people who can have their own accounts on said sites, should receive a new designation. That designation should be particular to these sites, namely social media sites – with a VERY clear definition of the terms of what constitutes a social media site.
Any website deemed a social media website should have particular rules to follow unique to their designation. And what would those rules be?
Simple actually. Any social media Internet presence that would like to continue to enjoy immunity from the content posted on said site – must allow all content to be posted. Therefore, no more censorship will be allowed or tolerated. If a site chooses to censor, that’s fine, but then that sites immunity to prosecution would be revoked, and they would become liable under the law just like any offline publishers are for their content. Guaranteed the censorship would immediately stop. Facebook could instantly lose millions of dollars.
There would of course have to be highly defined exceptions, like an allowance for site owners to disallow porn, or terrorist communications, live streaming of violence etc.
There is no reason that these social media companies should be allowed to censor. This is not the free exchange of ideas. I do not like liberal think, but I will defend their right to post their thoughts. Doing otherwise is a violation of free speech, period.
These libs that say the conservatives or whoever they happen to be currently at odds with can just go somewhere else, find a different platform – are being at the very least disingenuous, and dishonest. We all know that were the situation reversed, these very same people would scream unfair, censorship, un-American etc. at the top of their lungs. They would be calling for heads to roll, and rightly so. Anyone that denies that this is the truth is a flat out liar.
When one side of the equation if you will is silenced, we lose something, something that is very much needed and necessary. There needs to be the ability, the right to be able to express ones thoughts without fear of being punished, banned, doxed, deplatformed, removed from your server, fired from your job, physically beaten, having to endure death threats, physical damage to your property and more. All because a person dared to express their opinion or idea.
These kinds of actions aren’t American (I myself am ashamed of people that choose to act like this) – this is the kind of thinking and actions that communism is birthed through.
America – we can do better!
America is in deep danger of becoming a communist nation. Maybe an even deeper problem is that so much of the American populace, on both sides of the issue, cannot seem to see this.
What if the Republicans were in total control, and the Leftists were treated exactly like we are? Would that be any better? I know many will answer that question in the affirmative. Wrong answer.
Stop and think about this. Every issue, every situation – everything period. There is one opinion allowed, and you must follow it, or else. Exactly like things are today with the Democrats in control. Everything the Democrats are for, we all have to be for, or there will be consequences. You can be banned on social media, you can be doxed, you can possibly lose friends, you can be assaulted, your business shut down and burned down, and you can be fired etc. That is not a good situation, and it would not be any better if the Republicans had complete control of the reins.
There are two sides to every coin, and whether or not we like it, both sides of the coin are needed.
Digital Media Law Project
To read more articles by Greg Holt click here.