The case for free speech is obvious in a liberal republic, almost self-evident. But as a matter of pure pragmatism, it’s also a lot easier for social media companies to embrace the First Amendment as a guiding principle. Even though private firms aren’t beholden to the Constitution, as it turns out, reinventing the wheel in the form of speech codes and thought policing is as difficult as it is illiberal.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is now learning that the hard way.
Recommended Stories
After coming under paternalistic fire from Warren and Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Twitter decided to stick it to Facebook by preemptively banning political advertisements. The big government Left cheered. The big government Right shrugged. The rest of us asked the obvious: How on Earth would Twitter decide what constitutes a “political” ad?
Could a left-wing think tank such as the Center For American Progress run an issue ad? Could its now-defunct media offshoot Think Progress have done so?
Would a church be allowed to promote pro-life content? Would Planned Parenthood be barred from promoting its own pro-choice content?
And would you really want Jack Dorsey, a man who literally eats five meals a week and takes ice baths every other night, to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes politics?
The answer to that last question is obviously no, and Warren just discovered why. The new Twitter policy is simply that political organizations can’t buy ads but profit-motivated firms can. Thus, environmental advocacy groups can’t buy ads but Exxon can!
It turns out if you’re a giant corporation with millions to spend misleading people on your record of accelerating the climate crisis, that’s exactly what you can—and probably will—do. https://t.co/gV3xIxj7wp
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) November 5, 2019
Dorsey has attempted to hedge this criticism by noting that the formal criteria for the policy won’t go public until later this month, but absent overt political discrimination against conservatives, it’s hard to imagine any set of guidelines that would make Warren acolytes satisfied. If anything, regulation of political ads will likely benefit conservatives, who tend to confine their politics more than liberals. After all, churches and corporations cannot fall under any reasonable “political” definition while originally apolitical institutions that have become overtly so — say, unions and women’s health organizations — almost certainly will.
Free speech is not only the most moral framework for social networks to embrace; it’s also the easiest one to govern. Warren may never accept that, but perhaps her followers will.
