You’re Wrong About the 1st Amendment

You’re Wrong About the 1st Amendment

There is a lot of yapping and grumbling going on right now about The 1st Amendment, our most important right.

A lot of that anger is being directed at social media giants Facebook and Twitter.

Facebook is being accused by the left and right of employing a bias. Break the rules and you go to Facebook jail, meaning you can’t share posts or have your posts shared or, in some instances, do anything other than view posts by others.

I was in Facebook jail once for two weeks.

It was about eight years ago and the algorithm got twisted up a bit, resulting in a lot of people being bounced for no good reason. After two weeks of arguing back and forth, the Facebook minion who I was dealing with finally came clean and told me it was all a mistake, that somehow the parameters of Facebook law had gone awry, the algorithm got screwed up, and I could go back to normal.

There’s a lot, now, however, being bandied about.

Some conservative friends are complaining that they have had posts taken down for violating community standards.

But, I also have some liberal friends grousing about the same thing.

Of course, the posts were long-removed and I never got the chance to see what they actually posted so whether they violated community standards or not is impossible for me to determine. I have a feeling, however, that there was probably a grain of truth to the claim that some of these folks stepped one toke over the line. In fact, I pretty much can rest assured that is exactly what happened, regardless of their ideology.

Twitter has been drawing heat for placing a warning on tweets from the president’s account. The social media outlet hasn’t outright banned the president, even though he has clearly violated the rules of Twitterdom, crossing to outright violations of decency, with some of his dangerous and inflammatory language. Twitter claims that as a serious public figure, there is certain newsworthiness in whatever he spews. As much as I hate to agree, the public has a right to know just how ignorant, hateful, and spiteful the president is and to hear it from his own fingertips.

But, despite all of that, Facebook, Twitter, and all of the other social media outlets have every right to issue any kind of warning they so choose, can take down any post or tweet they wish, can block any account they deem unfit and it is not a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The intent of the 1st Amendment is to ensure that the government does not interfere with free speech, expression, assembly, religion, or seeking redress. As far as what you say or do on somebody else’s property is a different matter, and Facebook is Mark Zuckerberg’s property. I’m surprised at the number of folks out there who must have been absent the day that lesson was taught in their high school civics class.

Zuckerberg is, in essence, the publisher of Facebook. It is his publication, his medium, and he can allow or deny any content he wishes. The same goes for The Washington Post, Fox News, The Huffington Post, The National Enquirer, or, for that matter, the Southern Utah Independent. Those of us who pursued a career in the media are at the mercy of our publishers, in my case, Josh Warburton. Josh can manipulate, reject, or play up any damned thing he wishes on these pages because as a publisher, he has that right to do so without governmental interference. However, that doesn’t mean I can go to Josh and argue that he is infringing on my 1st Amendment rights if he rejects a piece I write. The Independent is his baby and he can include or exclude anything he wishes. He is under no obligation, legally, to publish anything and everything that passes across his desk. Luckily, Josh is a fair-minded guy who is fearless in publishing as many cogent views as possible without prejudice. I am quite sure, however, that if I suddenly started writing about how Spongebob Squarepants is the leader of a radical undersea cult worshipping Squidward that is intent on overthrowing the United States government he might, at the very least, ask what I’ve been smoking and spike the column. It is his right to apply any rules of censorship he believes are relevant to his publication. If I don’t like it, I can pack up my words and go elsewhere. But, I cannot file a lawsuit against him claiming he has infringed my 1st Amendment rights. I can only do so if the giant squid in the White House, or the minions of Congress, decide to place a prohibition on publication of any pieces I might write about Squidward-gate.

Same for the right to assembly.

As long as I am on the sidewalk or public way, I can carry a picket sign or demonstrate against anything I wish. However, if I cross over onto private property I can end up in the back seat of a patrol car and headed for the county lockup because the property owner is not required to permit access to their home or business or private holding.

Zuckerberg is feeling a crunch right now. He is being criticized for following Twitter in issuing warnings, at the very least, for the violations of community standards that take place on an almost daily basis by the president.

Some of Facebook’s strongest support will be withheld next month when advertisers – from Ben & Jerry’s to Coca Cola – withhold advertising in protest of Facebook’s lack of action on these violations.

I don’t like boycotts. They are about as effective, for the most part, as one of those petitions that used to circulate when we were in high school and ticked off about some inconsequential action by the principal.

Besides, boycotts almost never work. Yes, there was an 8 percent drop in Facebook’s stock price as a result of the announced boycotts, but in the end, Ben & Jerry’s, Coca Cola, and all of the others will flock back to advertising on Facebook after a month off because advertising on Facebook produces measurable results. Facebook stock will bounce back, with some new, smart money that jumped on the price drop and bought low. When the advertisers realize that their boycott had more of an adverse effect on their bottom line than Facebook’s, they’ll be back, fighting for market share again.

It will have nothing to do with such lofty ideals as the 1st Amendment, truth, justice, or fairness. That all takes a back seat in the minds of these guys who are much more interested in profit margins and satisfying investors.

It’s the stuff we learned in our high school economics classes.

But, I guess the same folks who walk around ignorant of the parameters of the 1st Amendment also chose to ditch class the day this lesson was taught in their econ class.

If they can’t get the first one right it’s no wonder they have so much trouble understanding the 2nd Amendment.

Viewpoints and perspectives expressed throughout The Independent are those of the individual contributors. They do not necessarily reflect those held by the staff of The Independent or our advertising sponsors. Your comments, rebuttals, and contributions are welcome in accordance with our Terms of Service. Please be respectful and abide by our Community Rules. If you have privacy concerns you can view our Privacy Policy here. Thank you! 

Click here to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or a Letter to the Editor