Collect Call From Twitmo

When the public square is privately owned, censorship becomes arbitrary, juvenile, and capriciously adjudicated.

Reflecting on my school days, I often found myself in trouble, though never for anything serious. My infractions were usually minor, such as insubordination or what was termed “disruption.” My penchant for “talking back” was often viewed as a significant offense.

Fast forward to today, and not much has changed.

In my early schooling, I often lunched with our principal, Mr. Gingrich, which wasn’t exactly my ideal social interaction during PB&J time.

High school saw me racking up detentions and in-school suspensions — the reasons now lost to memory, though likely due to skipping classes. I had a free-spirited approach and often felt the rules didn’t quite apply to me.

My high school Vice Principal dubbed me his “classroom lawyer” for my habit of defending peers against perceived injustices from teachers and administrators, even when it didn’t concern me directly. If I sensed someone was being unfairly treated, I’d step in to advocate on their behalf.

Let’s just say I was working pro bono for the cause of resistance. Power to the people.

Virtual Lockup

It’s been quite some time since I’ve faced suspension from social media, as I’ve largely learned to self-censor and sidestep the repercussions from the bots and overseers of propriety on these platforms that masquerade as public forums.

However, yesterday, I let my guard down — and perhaps wasn’t clever enough — when I joked that someone indeed needed to beat a political candidate at the polls. It was an obvious jest, yet social media doesn’t tolerate wordplay. Its algorithms are quick to judge intent and punish, even when misinterpreted.

Awakening today, I found a Twitter notification informing me of my suspension for allegedly breaching some obscure guideline. I opted not to contest this, and they initiated a 9-hour countdown during which I would only have read-only access.

Now, I find myself in solitary confinement in Twitmo, the unofficial virtual prison of Twitter, where all undesirable tweets and their authors reflect on their transgressions and reconsider their future communications in the Twitterverse.

A Looser Grip On Reality

I once dedicated an excessive amount of time to Facebook, where I cultivated a notable following who would regularly engage with my various posts. A suspension from that platform felt particularly severe, as I suddenly lost the ability to interact with others and explain my absence.

Since my exit from Facebook, Twitter has become my primary social media outlet. I possess multiple Instagram accounts that have fallen into disuse, a seldom-visited Reddit account, a LinkedIn profile I still find perplexing, and a Tumblr account that has seen better days since its acquisition by Yahoo!.

The upside is that, despite spending considerable time on Twitter, I’m no longer ensnared in a feedback loop, as my follower count is far less substantial than it once was. I often find myself posting into the void, primarily for my own peace of mind rather than any expectation that others are absorbing my insights condensed into 240 characters.

When The Public Square Is Privately Owned

These experiences have prompted me to reconsider the essence of the public square in the era of social media, where one can easily collide with private corporate interests while attempting to engage in meaningful discourse.

While technically no one owns the internet, the infrastructure that enables its function is owned by various companies and organizations, all of which rely on a shared set of rules for effective connectivity. This complex web supports $12.7 trillion in global GDP, accounting for approximately 15.5% of the world’s total economic output — underscoring the internet's critical role.

Too often, we regard the internet as merely a repository for amusing cat videos and elaborate desserts. In reality, access to the internet is vital in most modern societies and integral to contemporary economies.

According to Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.”¹

One could argue convincingly that being barred from the internet or specific social media platforms constitutes a violation of these rights, despite the fact that these platforms are privately owned and not required to offer their services.

An Essential Public Utility

As our lives become increasingly intertwined with the online world, the pressing question arises: should the internet be regulated like a public utility, even if it consists of a private network of networks? Historical precedents exist; there are gas and water companies that, while privately owned, are still regulated as essential public utilities.

What was once perceived as merely a high-tech entertainment medium, complete with addictive games and clever videos, has evolved into the public square — a hub for commerce, politics, scientific inquiry, and breaking news.

Few facets of modern life remain untouched by social media's influence or are not directly facilitated through it. In many developing nations, internet access is primarily channeled through social media platforms like Meta’s Facebook.

Gone are the days of regulated broadcast airwaves overseen by the FCC, replaced by a scenario where individuals may find themselves excluded from public discourse if they do not conform to the whims of a single publicly-traded entity controlled by an individual.

The Chilling Effect

In interpreting the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, the Supreme Court has often emphasized that a law or policy doesn’t need to explicitly target a specific form of speech for it to create a chilling effect on all expressions, driven by a fear of government repercussions.

In Baggett v. Bullitt (1964), the Court invalidated loyalty oaths that compelled state employees to affirm they were not members of purportedly subversive organizations and required teachers to pledge their undivided allegiance to the United States government. The Court noted that “the threat of sanctions may deter…almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions.”²

In Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965), the Court struck down a postal regulation mandating individuals wishing to receive communist literature to register at the post office. Although no sanctions were imposed on those seeking such materials, the Court ruled that this could certainly discourage individuals from expressing their desires to the government.³

A Monopoly Of Free Speech

These historical cases revolve around classic free speech claims advocating for an individual’s right to freedom from governmental interference in their expressions. Today, the challenge lies in a private company’s ability to not only ban any speech it deems inappropriate but also threaten penalties against users who do not adhere to their often vague policies. Their defense is simple: they are a private entity, and no one is obliged to utilize their services.

However, as they establish monopolies within their ecosystems, this argument weakens. If you’re expelled from Twitter, where you may have cultivated a significant following and public recognition, there are no viable alternatives to continue your discourse. Essentially, you’ve been silenced in that space, despite other potential avenues for expression.

This situation is akin to choosing between speaking to millions on a television program or standing on a soapbox outside the studio. While both utilize the public square, they do not offer equal opportunities.

For media organizations or publications without access to Facebook or Twitter, the disadvantage in news dissemination becomes pronounced, even if their own platforms remain unaffected.

The Nazi Paradox

Americans grapple with the concept of free speech in a contemporary landscape with minimal gatekeeping, where everyone possesses a megaphone. Most other developed democracies do not adhere to an absolutist view of free speech. For instance, in Germany, Nazi symbols such as the swastika and SS insignia are illegal and can result in fines or imprisonment for up to three years.

Conversely, the U.S. displays considerable reluctance to suppress any speech, including hate speech, unless it can be shown that the potential harm outweighs the risk of restricting freedom of expression.

I experienced mixed feelings when the former president's Twitter account was suspended. Personally, I believed it was a matter of national security, as he posed a tangible threat of inciting violence. Yet, I still struggle with the notion that a private platform like Twitter can wield such a profound impact on an individual's freedom of speech, effectively silencing them.

The Limits Of Freedom

As we approach the latter half of our third century as a nation, it’s imperative we reassess some of our foundational beliefs, especially those formed long before the advent of electronic communication, let alone electricity. We cannot persist in applying the same frameworks to scenarios that have evolved so drastically.

Should we permit hate speech to proliferate unchecked in the public square, or is it time to adopt a more cautious approach to absolute free speech? New regulations must be established to address the democratization of broadcasting, ensuring that dangerous rhetoric is contained without being overly restrictive.

We already prohibit incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. We acknowledge that free speech and expression are not absolute rights. What we require is a 21st-century solution to manage the overwhelming surge of content generated by the public.

Breaking Bad

It’s indisputable that we have entered a new era dominated by tycoons and monopolies amassing unprecedented power and wealth. We’ve witnessed this before and successfully dismantled such conglomerates, yet America remains hesitant to do so again. This reluctance stems largely from the Supreme Court's ruling that corporations can essentially purchase political influence at will.

Firms like Apple, Google, Amazon, Meta, and Twitter have become excessively large and powerful, creating conditions that are unhealthy for anyone beyond their shareholders. Even traditional media has been monopolized by a select few, despite laws meant to prevent such situations. In 1985, 50 companies managed most of American media; today, just six corporations — AT&T, CBS, Comcast, Disney, Newscorp, and Viacom — control 90% of the media landscape in the United States.

For America to thrive into the 21st century, we must reclaim control over both our government and the public square from a small cadre of extraordinarily wealthy individuals. We can undertake this task through cooperation or conflict, but ultimately, the outcome will either be in favor of the populace or the elite.

The barbarians are not yet at the gates, as we mistakenly believe these gates protect us. In truth, we are the barbarians, and the barriers are mere illusions.