Hey, Mark Zuckerberg: Get off the fence on free speech

Zuckerberg lauded the merits of free expression in the beginning of the speech, quoting icons such as Frederick Douglass and touting the countless examples of how free speech has led to progress throughout history. He remarked: “We are at a crossroads, we can either continue to stand for free expression, or we can decide that the cost is simply too great. I am here today because I believe that we should continue to stand for free expression.”

But is the tech mogul really such a staunch supporter of free speech?

Zuckerberg continued to point out that not all forms of speech are protected and correctly noted that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations or private platforms. He argued that this entitles Facebook to censor content such as terrorist propaganda or pornography, a point few would find objectionable.

Zuckerberg also argued that this allows Facebook to prevent “bullying,” more or less saying that you should be able to say things that other people don’t like but not things that put other people in “danger.” In theory, this would only prevent threats of violence. But unfortunately, in the age of safe spaces, that would include just about any opinion leftists don’t like. To a sadly growing number of people today, opinions that differ from their own are violence, ipso facto.

Thankfully, Zuckerberg did stand up to anti-speech progressive critics such as Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who think Facebook ought to decide what it is “true” and call on the company to censor “false” political ads.

“I don’t think we want to live in a world where tech companies decide what is true,” Zuckerberg said. He also added that tech companies should not censor newsworthy remarks by politicians in a democracy, even if they would otherwise violate the terms of service. This is a relief, as no free speech supporter wants Silicon Valley elites arbitrarily limiting our access to political figures.

But Zuckerberg continued to cite dubious crackdowns on “hate speech,” saying content that “dehumanizes” others won’t be allowed, because it can lead to violence. This is a highly problematic standard: According to the modern Left, just about any questioning of social justice dogma is “dehumanizing” to some group.

And Facebook has a murky record when it comes to political censorship, for sure. The platform has banned controversial political figures such as Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Louis Farrakhan. To be sure, all three peddle in vitriol, hate, and conspiracy theories, but much of what they say would be considered protected speech under the First Amendment nonetheless.

If Facebook truly wished to honor the values of the First Amendment, despite it not binding them under law, it would allow such people, no matter how distasteful, to retain accounts, but it would censor content they post that does constitute incitement to violence or other unprotected speech.

Facebook has also suppressed conservative news topics that ought to have been promoted under trending news for political reasons. Additionally, their algorithm changes have punished conservative news outlets while helping liberal publications boost traffic.

All in all, today’s speech offered just another reminder of the enormous gap between Mark Zuckerberg’s words and Facebook’s actual actions. It was a clear attempt to appease both the company’s left-wing critics, who call for greater speech policing, and right-wing critics who decry censorship and support an open platform.

Zuckerberg deserves credit for his sound rejection of liberals clamoring to censor “false” conservative political advertisements. But he continues to try and have it both ways on broader matters of platform access and censorship. At some point, Zuckerberg will have to get off the fence and take a side in the free speech wars. Today simply wasn’t that day.