Social Media Figures & The First Amendment
A picture of the Constitution of the United States is magnified, with a Bible in the background. Source: Anthony Garand, Unsplash, @garand
Content warning: This article contains mentions of abuse
Andrew Tate, 35-year-old former kickboxer and infamous internet personality, was recently banned on all major social media platforms, The New York Times reported. In the past few weeks, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok have all removed Tate’s accounts, citing violations of their terms of service.
Tate recently rose to new heights of internet fame by peddling his brand of violent misogyny and sexism, which garnered more recent attention online from TikTok users reposting videos of Tate on the platform. According to The Wall Street Post, notable quotes from him include: “I’m not saying [women are] property. I am saying they are given to the man and belong to the man;” (referring to if a woman accused him of cheating), ''bang out the machete, boom in her face and grip her up by the neck;” and "Depression isn't real. You feel sad, you move on. You will always be depressed if your life is depressing.”
Despite this, Tate drew 744,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel and 4.7 million followers to his Instagram, mainly men looking for direction in life, according to Forbes. Interest in him soared this summer, according to Google Trends. Public outcry rose as his fame did, culminating in his mass ban online at the end of August.
There have been similar mass social media bans in the past. Alex Jones was subject to such a ban in 2018, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Jones, a conservative conspiracy theorist and television personality, has recently been the subject of much media attention over a lawsuit by the families of children killed in the Sandy Hook mass shooting. At the time of his mass ban, numerous conservative individuals protested his removal, citing similar free speech concerns, according to Vox. Nevertheless, Jones remains banned on most social media platforms to this day, despite having an audience similar in size to Tate.
In the midst of this social media crackdown on Tate, there are concerns about the First Amendment of the United States, which explicitly states, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech....” Of course, neither Instagram, TikTokor Twitter are Congressional bodies. As private entities, said corporations are free to permit or prohibit whatever form of speech is presented on their platforms at their discretion. However, more often than not, social media companies take a hands-off approach, only intervening in the face of prolonged, massive public outcries against a particular figure on their platform.
The most famous case of this thus far was the mass social media ban of former president Donald Trump in 2021 following the January 6 attacks on the United States Capitol. The attack saw numerous social media bans of conservative individuals and conspiracy theorists who could be tied to the attacks: Twitter banned Sidney Powell, Ron Watkins and Michael Flynn, and YouTube banned Steve Bannon. Notably, all of these accounts were utilized to spread hateful rhetoric, but the companies did nothing until after any demonstrable damage had been done.
Legal quandaries of this nature are unprecedented and shall continue to raise concerns as the internet crawls its way out of infancy and becomes more firmly entrenched in social and legal structures. The internet breeds a totally new method of communication, and how the state will take a greater role in regulating it remains to be seen. Certain state legislatures have taken steps toward restricting censorship on social media platforms.
This is the case in Texas, where a case went all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Texas passed a law last September allowing social media users to sue companies that restricted what material they posted to their accounts, or to sue if they were banned for their views. The Court suspended the law in May, according to Politico, pending a decision from the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals. Notably, the law has not been deemed unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals. A similar legal battle unfolded in May as well, in Florida. Governor Ron DeSantis championed a law that would prohibit social media companies from banning political candidates or journalistic enterprises. However, the law was blocked by the 11th U.S. District Court of Appeals.
The internet is a great tool for the dissemination of information and for bringing people together, but as with all tools, it can be used for purposes either bad or good. It can be used to raise awareness about corrupt individuals, and at the same time be used to tout conspiracy theories and misogyny. As it stands, the internet is somewhat lawless, with only the most extreme examples of hatred being censored by the companies, and only if the censored party is obscure enough to not be able to draw upon clout in the form of fans.
The question is not if there should be legislation requiring the absence of censorship on social media platforms, but if there should be legislation requiring the presence of censorship on social media platforms.