(This post is from the perspective of a US Citizen - I do not know the rights of other nations citizenry; however, you may find principles that are useful to your situation.)
In the Constitution of the United States, the first amendment reads:
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 seems as though we have a misguided citizenry, if you read the various social media posts. One might even get the idea that our first amendment rights are being quashed actually. As I write this, I do so as a US citizen, and also as a Baptist Christian. In addition to that I am a licensed Amateur Radio operator, call sign N9ITE, and each of these roles informs my writing.
In the past few years there has been a noticeable shift in the polarization of parties. This shift has created a gulf between parties who, seeking to express themselves in such an atmosphere, have become generally less civil than in other times.
So, I quote the 1st amendment of our constitution. And such a right to speech which is free of government meddling is obvious to any plain interpretation. Here is my objection. How is the censoring of individuals, as for example, on Facebook an abridgment of their free speech? Clearly there is a misunderstanding of the government’s role and our citizenship rights. Even as I couch the argument, it should be apparent that Facebook censoring my posts, or even removing my access to their site does not actually impede my free speech by law of congress.
I hear my first objection - But Facebook is a public platform and I live in the USA. So, let’s consider that question. Is Facebook a public platform? Certainly it caters to public access and dissemination of information publically. But, are its resources publically owned, as for example, the sidewalk in front of my home? Not at all. In fact, it is a corporation, owned publically and traded on NASDAQ as FB. And unless you are a majority stockholder you have very limited rights to its resources.
Let me offer another point of view - that of an FCC licensed Amateur radio operator. For the most part, my transmissions are protected by the first amendment, so far as they originate on American soil and are direct transmissions from one party to another. And while I am ‘free’ to speak in this venue it is not free, in the sense that I purchased a great deal of equipment, and studied to pass the various exam levels (I am an Extra licensee, which affords me the broadest scope of frequencies to transmit).
One of the very first frequencies many radio operators use is the 2 meter frequency, which typically at 5 - 10 watts may travel as much as 30 miles. But often we use a tower called a repeater to retransmit (on a higher physical plane and with more power) to a much greater potential audience. Those whom I speak to can be much further away and will hear me much more clearly. The use of a repeater is a privilege - not a right. In much the same way as I spent time and money to become licensed, the repeater owner also spends time and money to establish his tower. He owns the equipment, and while typically the use of it is free, the owner may indeed impose rules that he establishes. He is allowed to do this because he owns the equipment. As a matter of fact, I am free to purchase the equipment and buy land for a tower, and set up for myself and my interests, a repeater of my own.
I own my home. And the ownership comes with privileges. I can establish who I let enter, and if I do not like what they say, I can eject them from my home. If Facebook bans some language or censors a particular person, they have that right and for the same reasons I do in my home.
In actual fact, the very amendment many are claiming grants them freedom to express their viewpoint, is what protects Facebook’s right to censor whatever their liberal hearts’ desire.
Let’s ask a what if question, to illustrate. What if you lived in North Korea and you wanted to write news articles in the local paper? Could you do so? Maybe - but you’d have to be certain not to have your content offend the dictator, since he is the only free person in the nation. What if, in your North Korean town you had the money to produce a newspaper all your own, and began to publish content that did not accord with the dictatorship? You’d have the same constraint - you’d better not offend the regime! This is what free speech is about.
No one ever argues we are free to say anything we want in any space we choose. We all know about the old example of shouting, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. It’s obvious on its face that we are not free to do such things.
I’d like to close with an argument from Justice Antonin Scalia. He speaks as eloquently as anyone ever did on our ‘freedoms’ and I think, if you consider his argument, you will have a very much broader understanding of our rights as US citizens. Antonin Scalia was a justice for 29 years until his death in 2016. Here is one of his common arguments and it greatly enlightened me. I hope it does you as well.
I ask them, “What do you think is the reason that America is such a free country? What is it in our Constitution that makes us what we are?” And I guarantee you that the response I will get – and you will get this from almost any American, including the woman that he was talking to at the supermarket – the answer would be Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no unreasonable searches and seizures, no quartering of troops in homes. Those marvelous provisions of the Bill of Rights. But then I tell them, “If you think that a bill of rights is what sets us apart, you’re crazy.” Every banana republic in the world has a bill of rights.
Every president for life has a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights of the of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was much better than ours. I mean it literally; it was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal! They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations, and protests, and anyone who is who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff! Of course, just words on paper, what our framers would have called ‘a parchment guarantee’. And the reason is that the real Constitution of the Soviet Union – you think of the word Constitution, it doesn’t mean a bill, it means structure say a person has a sound constitution, here’s a sound structure – the real Constitution of the Soviet Union – which is what our framers debated that that whole summer in Philadelphia in 1787, they didn’t talk about the Bill of Rights. That was an afterthought wasn’t it? That constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the centralization of power, in one person or in one party. And when that happens, the game is over. The Bill of Rights is just what our framers would call a parchment guarantee.
So the real key to the distinctiveness of America is the structure of our government. One part of it of course, is the independence of the Judiciary. But there’s a lot more. There are very few countries in the world, for example, that have a bicameral legislature. Oh, England has a House of Lords for the time being, but the House of Lords has no substantial power. They can just make the Commons pass a bill a second time. France has a Senate, it’s honorific. Italy has a Senate, it’s honorific. Very few countries have two separate bodies in the legislature, equally powerful. That’s a lot of trouble, as you gentlemen doubtless know! To get the same language through two different bodies, elected in a different fashion. Very few countries in the world, have a separately elected chief executive. Sometimes I go to Europe to talk about separation of powers. And when I get there, I find that all I’m talking about is independence of the judiciary. Because the Europeans don’t even try to divide the two political powers, the two political branches, the legislature and the chief executive. In all of the parliamentary countries, the chief executive is the creature of the legislature. There’s never any disagreement between them and the Prime Minister as there is sometimes between you and the president. When there’s a disagreement, they just kick them out. They have a no confidence vote, a new election, and they get a prime minister who agrees with the legislature. And you know, the Europeans look at this system and they say, “Well it passes one house it doesn’t pass the other house. Sometimes the other house is in the control of a different party. It passes both and then this president, who has a veto power, vetoes it!” And they look at this and they say, “Ahh, it is gridlock!” And I hear Americans saying this nowadays. And there’s a lot of it going around. They talk about a dysfunctional government because there’s disagreement. And the framers would have said, “Yes! That’s exactly the way we set it up. We wanted this to be power contradicting power, because the main ill that beset us” as Hamilton said in the Federalist, when he talked about a separate Senate, he said, “Yes, it seems inconvenient, but in as much as the main ill that besets us, is an excess of legislation, it won’t be so bad.” (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia delivers opening statement before a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the Role of Judges under the U.S. Constitution. Remarks delivered 5 October 2011. https://youtu.be/Ggz_gd--UO0)
Download a copy for personal use: https://ln.sync.com/dl/21e041990/qnib4say-6exutn2g-xrcr8cum-6hah3z3p
