Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites should let people have their say — even the jerks

Instagram, owned by Facebook, decided to take a stand against “hate” and remove a bevy of individuals from its platforms. Ridding people they don’t like— and their speech— has been a go-to move for many social platforms over the past year.

Now, I personally abhor Louis Farrakhan with every fiber of my being, and I think that Alex Jones’ Sandy Hook hoax comments were beyond cruel. That being said, I don’t think they should be kicked off social media. I don’t think that social media companies should be in the business of de-platforming; I think they should embrace the principle of free speech.

{mosads}This is not about siding with a person or an idea, this is about protecting the concept of free speech.

Note that I make the distinction of “principle” of free speech, and not any sort of constitutional or other legal right to it. I believe private entities should have the discretion to do what they want and should not be forced by regulation to behave a certain way. However, as a shareholder of Facebook and a power-user of platforms like Twitter, I believe their choice should be to embrace freedom of speech.

As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said in her writings about Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Unless users are using their platform for illegal behavior or directly calling for violence, I say let all speech — whether you agree or disagree with it, whether you love it or think it is hateful — stay in the open for people to see and refute with other speech.

Social media companies, who have been widely accused of having an anti-conservative bias, create a slippery slope when they become the arbiters of content. If social media is a platform, not a publisher, erring on the side of free speech makes sense. What one person considers hateful, another may consider to be factual.

While it is easy to be against free speech when you clearly don’t like the speech or person saying it, there’s no stopping them from coming after you next. I despise Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic language and postings. But, what happens when speaking out against Sharia law is seen as “hateful” in the eyes of some? Censorship gives too much power and control over the discourse to a few people, which is against the notion of sharing ideas.

And, since the social media companies have given users the tools to mute and block content they don’t want to see, it’s in their business interest to have an open platform that embraces free speech ideals.

Moreover, I’d prefer to see who my enemies are, to know what they are up to and track their efforts. When these outcasts are deplatformed from the “mainstream” platforms and have nowhere else to go, it’s not difficult to surmise that they will take their activity to more covert corners of the web where their words and actions can become more dangerous and nefarious, especially as they find connections with other “distasteful” outcasts who have suffered the same fate.

Deplatforming is a scary, powerful form of censorship. What happens when it spreads past just social media? What if ISPs decide not to provide you internet service because they don’t agree with the websites you visit?

What if PayPal, Visa and Mastercard decide not to process payments for your business because they don’t like what you have said? It may sound far-fetched, but the latter has already happened to several outspoken individuals who were dropped from platforms like Patreon due to pressure from payment processing services, as well as to the platform Gab, who lost many of its service providers.

When someone breaks a law, they are innocent until proven guilty. They have a trial and, if found guilty, are given a sentence. They fulfill that sentence — or get off early for good behavior — and their debt to society has been paid. When someone says or does something offensive or unpopular, while they have not broken the law, there is no due process; they receive the wrath of the social media mob and there is no path to redemption or, perhaps, even re-entry.

Should someone like Milo Yiannopoulos, who is only 34 years old and has been removed from several platforms, have to stay off them for the next 50-plus years? Does someone who says something, or does something that some subset of “others” does not like, deserve all of their other speech and opinions to be limited? Do they deserve to be able to earn a living, now or forever? Should they not be able to access payment processors, social platforms, banks or anything else because some people don’t like some of what they legally do or say? This is uncharted territory, and we need to tread carefully and thoughtfully.

The concept of free speech should not be an unpopular opinion or stance. The best way to combat speech you don’t like is with more speech. Refute the points, make the arguments, try to change as many minds and hearts as you can, and take note of those who don’t change. An enlightened, non-regulatory approach to speech and social media is the best path to enjoying our freedoms and learning to live in a world where not everyone agrees with you and where some people are just jerks.

Carol Roth is the creator of the Future File legacy planning system, a former investment banker, and the host of The Roth Effect podcast.