Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequence

When I wrote my previous post, I knew that the post would anger some readers. In fact one such comment came as a demand, by J.B., "Please remove the “Hitler had Aspergers” comment immediately . It is a minority viewpoint, and it perpetuates a growing paranoia that autistic individuals are violent sociopaths."  First off, by a show of hands/comments how many people believe that autistic people are sociopaths? What if the "viewpoint" is because every time there is a mass murder, the suspect is typically a white male and our first words are "He had mental issues." This my friends is where the lie gets perpetuated. He then became quite irate when I advised that was part of an article that I had used in my blog. Which he says that I "stole" the work and didn't cite it. However, writing a blog is quite different than writing an essay. Linking articles is attributing to the original author the work. 

Equally when we write using "Blocking Text" is quoting. Yet, instead of speaking rationally about why he believes I should remove my quote from the 13 similarities, he has attacked me as a writer. I remain unapologetic towards anyone who chooses to become angry over a quote, and makes demands. This however, does lead me to my next point. Just as everyone who has freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that your freedom is without consequence. 

This week, many people have been angered because the President has lost his Twitter and Facebook accounts. They have been citing the First Amendment; with very little success to those who have studied the Constitution.

Twitter's Terms of Service (TOS) state 

Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories. 

Hateful imagery and display names: You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header. You also may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category. 

Facebook has a similar TOS: We do not allow hate speech on Facebook because it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We protect against attacks on the basis of age when age is paired with another protected characteristic, and also provide certain protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. In some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.

In addition, we believe that people are more responsible when they share this kind of commentary using their authentic identity.

Because Mr. Trump's posts violated the TOS of both Twitter and Facebook, he was banned. Because Parler's TOS offers free speech and allows for hate-speech, Amazon's seller TOS states Amazon does not allow products that promote, incite or glorify hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance or promote organizations with such views. We'll also remove listings that graphically portray violence or victims of violence. We promote trust and respect, as well as adherence to the law.

The First Amendment states 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

You see that, right, CONGRESS, not individual companies. You can't come to my photography studio, sign a contact and say you will pay me a sitting fee of $25 per person and when you arrive for the shoot, pay me only $10 for the entire sitting. It's the the agreed upon terms. When I set up Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace back in the day, I too had to agree to the terms of service, when the President set up Twitter, and Facebook, he agreed to their terms of service, just because he's the president doesn't mean he can change them or get his way. 

The banning of the president isn't against our constitution, it's against our preferences, but it is certainly not against our constitution. According to an article in Business Insider, 

"The First Amendment is a constraint on the power of government. It doesn't apply to Twitter," said Daphne Keller, an attorney and internet law expert who leads the program on platform regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center, adding: "Twitter is not a state actor."

Just because we have freedom of speech doesn't mean we are freed from the consequence of said freedom. I am certainly not free from the consequences of my words, and neither is anyone else.