The struggle advocates of free expression on social media are facing is based on the State Action Doctrine establishing that without government involvement, no constitutional claim can be made of a violation of First Amendment Rights because only the government can violate constitutional rights, so the First Amendment does not apply to private actors. Therefore, if a social media company decides to censor or ban a user from their platform, it has authority to do so without violating an individual's foundational right to free speech.
Though there has not been a violation of Constitutional rights found in censorship, it is interesting to consider why platforms like Twitter have chosen to silence, at the time, the President of the United States, and not the Chinese Communist party. I find even more curiosity in forming an answer to why media outlets and journalists in particular, are pushing for more censorship causing a herd mentality on several censored platforms. Is the purpose of journalism not to voice all opinions and express all sides of stories journalists release? With this question in mind, I cannot seem to understand why journalists would want some people in the industry to be silenced for their views and others to have free expression without consequence.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/08/19/most-americans-think-social-media-sites-censor-political-viewpoints/
No comments:
Post a Comment