The First Amendment and Social Media

This is not the article I was prepared to write this morning but because of the eruption on Twitter I had to shift gears. Current events being what they are and all.

From the moment that Elon Musk tweeted “If this isn’t a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, what is?” I knew that my blog post from this morning was going to be a real shit show to put together. Sometimes it is like that when parts of the Constitution are taken out of context.

Well, as with anything constitutional I have my own take on it and it’s not what most people would think of as contemporarily conservative.

My whole line of thinking after reading the tweet went through a pretty serious period of confusion, during which time my opinion on the subject vacillated back and forth several times, before landing on the current conclusion and steadfastly remaining there for at least several hours now. My method of resolving confusions is rather specific and sometimes painstakingly long and detailed, as well as not being the main subject of this post, but to shorten it up a bit I start with the details I can directly observe and pick one as a major stable datum, then relate other things to it. Most of the time working at it this way any confusion I have will eventually blow.

Well, as part of the Constitution one of the things I do happen to know is the First Amendment; “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.”

It says, “Congress shall make no law….” Got that?

Now from here out you could substitute “any privately owned business” for “Twitter” and still get to the same point.

Twitter is a privately owned business. Twitter is not Congress. Twitter is not the government. Twitter does not make laws. Twitter and their employees enjoy the same First Amendment rights as any others. They can support who they want. They can refuse to support who they don’t want. This is their right. The owners of Twitter can choose who to do business with and who not to do business with. The owners of Twitter do not have to support who they don’t want in office. Twitter has freedom of association. Twitter has the right to assemble.

One of my followers on Twitter gave me this bit of advice; “Always walk away from an opportunity to explain 'freedom of association'.” That may have been the wise advice but I am what I am. And sometimes what I am is a person who goes around kicking hornet’s nests to amuse myself.

Government officials have the same First Amendment rights as the People do. Government officials have freedom of association. Government officials have the right to assemble. Government officials have the right to support who they want and not support who they don’t want.

Twitter and government officials have the freedom to choose to associate with each other or not.

I’ve seen people say that it is treason for Twitter and the government to suppress news that they didn’t want to have getting out, especially when the outcome of an election might have hinged on it.

The Constitution, in Article Three, Section Three, specifically defines what treason is. “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

Like it or not, and I assure you I don’t like it, the Demoncrap Party is part of the political system of the United States. A private company favoring the Demoncraps, while not a good decision for the country, is not an act of war against the United States. It is not treason for Twitter to suppress a news story, even if it is true, solely on the basis of it favoring or disfavoring another political party gaining power. If they suppressed a news story involving Moscow’s intention (fictitious at this point) to bomb the United States, when they had solid evidence that the story was true, that would be a different thing.

It is not treason for a government official to ask Twitter to suppress a news story even if it is true. Sure, it’s dishonest. It’s an extremely dangerous Public Relations trick if exposed, as we are currently seeing. However it is not treason.

So government officials can ask Twitter to push or suppress any news story they want. However if they try to strong arm them using government power to do so it would be corruption. There has been, thus far, no suggestion on the part of Twitter that any government official tried to force them to do what they did. They did it without "orders" and of their own free will.

Is it collusive and conspiratorial for them to do so? Yes. But not unconstitutional. Is it rigging an election? No. Vijaya Gadde, in suppressing the Biden Laptop story, did not rig the election. Rigging an election is where votes are deliberately miscounted or manipulated to favor a particular candidate. Gadde suppressed a news story that she disagreed with on the basis that it did not prefer her poor choice for a candidate. It is her right to be as stupid as her choices in politicians appears to be. Until she is the person actually counting and deliberately throwing the numbers of the votes it is not rigging an election.

It is not a violation of the First Amendment for a government official to ask Twitter to suppress a news story, even if true, because it does not constitute “congress making a law.” This is the same principle as a high school coach praying with the team. If no law was made there is no violation of the First.

Let’s face an unfortunate reality of living in a free society. All political advertising and news stories are a manipulation towards the specific and desired outcome of an election, regardless of who is doing it. That is the entire study of the subject of Political Science. It’s all about how to beat the other guy regardless of any other considerations. All stories published or suppressed involving politics is manipulation towards a specific outcome of an election. All politics leading up to an election is an attempt to manipulate the outcome of the election.

If we were to impose a law that nobody could publish any news items that may favor or disfavor any political party, in any political election news at all, there would be nothing that would be legal to have published, with or without government influence.

Yep. It certainly was dishonest of Twitter to suppress certain news items knowing that stories like Hunter’s Laptop, for example, were true. They, now as former employees of the privately owned company, will have to pay the piper.

The First Amendment applies to the federal government. A private company can’t violate the First Amendment. It was not a violation of the Constitution for Twitter to suppress news stories from users whose opinion they opposed. It may be a violation of other federal laws but in such case I would question their legitimacy under the Constitution.

As the owner of a major social media Elon Musk now wields a lot of power. I would like to ask him, if a Demoncraptic congressman comes to him and asks him to suppress a news story that he thinks is bogus does he have the right to, even if it changes the outcome of an election? Or if a Republican congressman comes to him and asks him to suppress a news story that he thinks is bogus does he have the right to, even if it changes the outcome of an election? Or if a Demoncraptic congressman comes to him and asks him to push a news story that he thinks is valid does he have the right to, even if it changes the outcome of an election? Or if a Republican congressman comes to him and asks him to push a news story that he thinks is valid does he have the right to, even if it changes the outcome of an election?

Well Hells Bells man! What do all political news stories do if they don’t potentially change the outcome of an election? Every. Single. Freakin. One. Of. Them. When it comes right down to it this story, in its entirety, is nothing new and different than any every day news cycle as far as politics are concerned.

Where are the “thou shalt not attempt to affect changes in the outcomes of elections” rules for privately owned companies or People or politicians in this country? Even if they did it at the suggestion of an official of the federal government with whom they agreed? They, as People of the United States, same as you or me, have every right to influence the outcome of elections. That’s what we are all doing in the political game. To say that they don’t have that right, and make that a law, would indeed be a violation of the First Amendment. To say that they don’t have the right to use whatever resources and public relations power that they have to get who they want elected is the same thing as saying that you and I have no right to use whatever resources and public relations power we have to influence the outcome of elections. That, for Christ’s sake, is what politics is by its very definition! Manipulate the public image of people to influence the outcomes of elections. Like it or not, and I most certainly don’t, the Demoncrap Party simply played a better game at this.

Let’s push into the background the fact that by the admission of Matt Taibbi of Twitter both parties had access to the same tools and demonstrably used them. Yes, it was not balanced. By what law do the actions of a private company have to be balanced? Or fair?

And seriously Elon, you really want to have to go to a judge every time you talk to a representative about what happens in your company that might involve an election? With all that you have going on don't you have better things to do?

“Freedom of the press” not only means that they can say or promote whatever they want, it means that they don’t have to say or promote something if they don’t want to. And they don’t need a reason to do it. That’s what freedom is. You can choose one thing or the other. If you can’t choose one thing or the other, of your own determinism, by definition on that subject you are not free.

To say that anybody has to say something, even if they don’t want to, is to say that they have no freedom of speech. Because you’re telling them what they have to say. To say that the owners of Twitter have to publish a story, under any circumstances, is to say that the owners of Twitter have no freedom of speech.

Just because you want Twitter to put your word, whatever it is, out there for public consumption, does not mean that Twitter has to agree to do it. This isn’t a suppression of your right to say whatever you want, because you can still do that. The owners of Twitter have the right to agree with you or not. You have every right to say what you want. What you do not have is the right to force other people to publish and repeat it, true or not, election or not.

The only mistake Twitter made in this is that they knew the story, like the Hunter Biden Laptop story, was true and they covered it up. It was a political Public Relations move in support of a candidate that they liked. It was successful. It was also very dishonest. It was very manipulative. It was very collusive. But that does not make it illegal. It does make it a very poor business choice because such lies, when exposed in the public eye, tend to backfire in the most spectacular of ways through the violation of public trust. Honest people don’t like being lied to.

I look at it like this. When you log into your Twitter account you are in their house. You agree by the Terms of Service Agreement to play by their rules. This is exactly like when you have a guest over to your house, or place of business, they must agree to abide by yours. You may not like their rules while in their house. They may be unfair. They may be totally against your set of personal and philosophic values. But you agreed to follow them by the act of entering. If you get bitch slapped after agreeing to their rules and are now on a tirade of righteous indignation about it, well then, all I can say to you is that you should have seen it coming. Remaining in someone else’s house while subject to the rules therein and claiming that you are being oppressed by their rules is rather silly at best.

“Congress shall make no law….”

It does not say freedom of speech in all circumstances, public or private, or only when they favor your side of a political argument, or as long as it doesn’t influence the outcome of an election. It is a prohibition of the federal government on making laws regarding the restriction of free speech. It also does not say that just because you, as a first party, say something, that all other second parties have to say it too, whether they want to or not. It also doesn’t say that privately owned communications companies can’t restrict you from saying whatever you want while you are using their platform. It also doesn’t say that privately owned communications companies have to be fair to you.

Was I disappointed that Biden won over Trump in 2020? Yes. However I never failed to recognize that Twitter was playing on the side of the Demoncraps the whole time.

We all knew it.

So why is everybody suddenly acting so surprised that they were actually doing what we all thought they were doing now that the actual evidence of them doing so is out?

Bah! Politics as usual.

It’s enough to make a person become a philosopher.