Much has been said of late about the ability of social media platforms to censor the speech of the users of those platforms. By most legal scholars the right of a corporation to decide what they will or will not allow on their platforms is absolute. “It’s their company, and they have a right to decide what to allow” … is what we are told time and again.
In reality, it’s not as simple as some would have you believe. In fact, there are all sorts of restrictions on companies (corporations) with regard to what they are permitted to do, or say, about their business or their customers.
For example, it used to be an accepted fact that a business has the right to “refuse service to anyone”. However, this is no longer the case. The reason why a person is “refused service” matters in the eyes of the law. You can’t refuse to serve someone due to their race or their sex for example. In some instances, you can’t refuse service to someone based on their sexual partner choices, although this is still an evolving issue.
In other examples, a business can’t deny someone employment, for the same reasons; or housing; or loans.
In all these situations, we affirm that an individual has rights that supersede those of the business or corporation. So why is censorship by a business or corporation any different? Why doesn’t the individual using the social media platform not have a right to be free from censorship or persecution by the corporation for expressing their views?
I would submit that the difference is one of absolute political bias, and not one of law or constitutional right.
There are no situations of record in which the major social media companies have censored a “progressive” of “leftist” user for their speech. In almost every case, censorship always runs in one direction, to the conservative right.
Perhaps some evidence to support the theory that corporations don’t have the right to censor users, despite their claims to the contrary, lies in the fact that they never state the reason for the censorship is due to a differing opinion. They always base the censorship on a falsified, third-party interpretation of analysis that they have designated as “fact-checking”.
The presumption here is that as long as the social media company cites a third party as the arbitrator of truth, then content that is non-truthful would be subject to censorship; and the user could even be punished for telling non-truths. Or so the theory goes. But this theory has not yet been fully tested in the legal system as yet.
To reemphasize the point, these social media companies are not basing their censorship on a straight-up disagreement over the “point of view”, as they ‘theoretically’ would have the grounds to stand, if they truly have the right to refuse service to anyone, “because it’s their business, and they can choose what gets posted.” They should have no fear is stating this outright.
No, they have outsourced their justification, which means they probably don’t actually believe they hold this right and nobody wants to go into court to defend it. For if they lost on those grounds … all bets would be off.
Let’s consider something else.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is pretty clear and interpretations have withstood the test of time. It states,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Without question, the courts have ruled this provision applies only to the restriction of the government’s powers and right, not the people. Lest we forget, the Constitution only ‘sanctifies’ the right of Man that were granted by God. In other words, our individual rights are not granted by the Constitution they are granted by God. The constitution states that the Government can’t take those rights from you.
So let’s break out the section where “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…”
In essence, the Freedom of Speech comes from God and this document emphatically states that Congress shall not interfere with that. Pretty simple, and universally accepted.
So what does this have to do with a Corporation? Don’t they have freedom of speech as well?
Well …. It’s been interpreted by courts that Corporations have free speech. But is this really correct?
God didn’t invent Corporations. God invented Man and Man invented Corporations. Thus, God didn’t give corporations rights, Man did. Specifically, Man created laws, through Congress that established the rules in which a Corporation MUST operate. Despite what Mitt Romney thinks, Corporations are not people. They are non-living paper entities that exist to deal with legal and tax implications. They are a creation of the Government.
See where this is going?
The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” But by creating the rules in which an entity known as a “corporation” is developed and then allowing that entity to “abridge” free speech, Congress has itself done exactly what the Constitution has forbidden. Congress has in effect outsourced censorship.
What can we do about this?
Two things have to be done in order for the people to retake their constitutional rights.
The first is that Congress must finally recognize, and create legislation, that specifically acknowledges that Corporations are NOT people. That corporations are not living organisms created by God and therefore do not have the same rights and privileges as People. This will go a long way to righting many of the wrongs that corporations have inflicted upon the citizens of the world.
The second is that Congress must create legislation that states that the limited powers of the government are also restricted to corporations in the same manner as that of the Government, for the corporation is an offspring of the government. Meaning, that a corporation can not violate any provision of the U.S. Constitution with regard to the rights of the individual. This includes the right to Free Speech … among others.
If the People of the United States can force through these very simple pieces of legislation, the rights of the People could once again be secured… and our democracy will be able to put this horrible period of history behind us.