Trump has no right to Twitter's audience

 Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 1/16/21

When a social media company bans someone, for whatever reason, is that a violation of that person’s free speech rights?

Seems that a lot of people might think so, and actually support it. In a November 2020 Gallup/Knight Foundation poll, 44 percent of Americans expressed support for restrictions on free speech on social media. That was an increase of nine percentage points from the previous year.

I am a staunch supporter of First Amendment rights. But, like it or not, those rights are restricted to the “public square.” And in our current society, we have pretty much abandoned the public square for something that looks like the public square, except it’s privately owned. Disney’s Mainstreet is not the same as the grounds of a state capitol. Twitter, Facebook, Parler, even the webpages of newspapers, are not public space, they are ultimately private spaces which have very large audiences. Their right to publish is constitutionally protected, but it’s not unlimited. They can be sued for libel.

In short, we have freedom of speech, but with limits. The famous "yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire" is one example.

I have a right to write this essay. I don’t have a right to an audience. I can take this essay to city hall and read it out loud. No one can interfere with me, at least not a government official or anyone acting as their agent. But I cannot demand that people pay attention. I’m fortunate that the editor of the Tribune-Star believes that what I write is worthy of being presented to the newspaper’s audience. The paper has developed an audience. In some ways, perhaps by publishing this essay, they hope to maintain and perhaps even increase it.

Social media has changed access to an audience. With an account, one can have access to an incredible audience, both in terms of size and reach. And the ability to share expands that audience. Whereas a newspaper sells subscriptions, both for print and virtual, social media simply assembles an audience. Audience members consume an incredible amount of advertising and in exchange for “membership” social media companies gather a lot of information from that audience and sell it. Most people who have an account with social media spend more time as an audience member (consumer) than exercising their ability to express themselves to an audience.

The U.S. Constitution provides us with a right to free speech but not to an audience.

Social media doesn’t expand our ability to express ourselves. It expands our ability to reach an audience. And, with private social media companies, beyond the tech, they “own” the audience, or at least access to it.

When Twitter banned President Trump from access to Twitter’s audience, they did not violate his ability to express himself; they denied him “their” audience. President Trump might have millions of “followers” but they have to have a Twitter account, meaning while they follow the President, they are still part of Twitter’s audience. And Twitter “controls” if not “owns” the audience. Nothing stopped him from calling a press conference, the pre-social media manner in which presidents communicated to the country. He could have issued a statement to be run through news media or on the White House website (www.whitehouse.gov).

Finally, if you believe that President Trump’s free speech was violated by Twitter, then getting angry at what the Tribune-Star publishes and canceling your subscription in response is a violation of the freedom of the press. And if that sounds ridiculous, it’s because it is, just as ridiculous as claiming that President Trump’s free speech was violated by Twitter.

However, the ability to deny an audience to certain ideas does seem to have a negative public impact. The ACLU thinks so (will conservatives embrace the ACLU on this one?). But to rein in social media’s power will require regulation. Regulation that conservatives detest (let the market decide) and that liberals might consider but once you begin the task, it quickly becomes impossible. Perhaps we need an NPR Twitter-like platform. A public option, if you will. Less Disney, more National Park.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email thomas.steiger@indstate.com.

A strange attitude concerning press censorship

I’ve been storing a truckload of my deceased parents’ stuff. This summer, after several moves and even more years, I decided to go through it and make the hard decisions about getting rid of (at least) some of it.

In one box was a clear plastic bag with newspapers in it. Tribune-Stars, haphazardly folded, but with a similarity; they were the D section of the Sunday Trib containing my essays. My mother was saving my essays. I’d discovered a treasure trove. Until 2007ish I didn’t save my Tribune-Star essays, so these have been termed “Mom’s archive” and I’ve been digitizing them and (re)publishing them on my personal blog.

Some of these previous essays beg for updating and that is what I am doing today, updating an essay published on Feb. 6, 2005, titled “A reaction laced with hypocrisy.” The essay was about a survey published by the Knight Foundation on the attitudes of high school students toward the First Amendment. Knight has recently published another survey and given the tensions surrounding the press, its role, journalists’ rights and “fake news” it seemed ready-made for an update.

Some of the high points of the survey findings from 2006 were that 70 percent of the surveyed high school students believed that newspapers should seek government approval before running their stories and that only a bit more than a third disagreed that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees. Those students would be today in their middle to late twenties and voting.

I wrote that this finding was a reason for concern. The Knight Foundation cited a lack of resources and extra-curricular opportunities to learn about the First Amendment such as school newspapers. I pointed to broader changes in schools and likened them to prisons as the lives of students were becoming increasingly regulated leaving less room for student agency.

The hypocrisy referred to in the title had to do with this finding: Fifty-eight percent of students agreed that high schools should be allowed to report on controversial issues in their student newspapers without approval of school authorities. But only 39 percent of teachers did and less than a quarter of principals did.

In 2016, 56 percent of students disagreed that the First Amendment went too far in the rights it guarantees. For the teachers, it was 75 percent who disagreed with that statement. As to newspapers seeking government approval before running their stories, 61 percent of students and 73 percent of teachers agreed. Seems contradictory.

Ninety-one percent of students agreed that “people should be able to express unpopular opinions.” And those who more frequently consume news and actively engage with news through social media demonstrate stronger support for First Amendment freedoms. Unfortunately, the report does not include data on how many students regularly consumed and engaged with news sources. Based on my experience with my students, I would guess the proportion to be small. Of those who said they engaged “often” the smartphone was their overwhelming source for their news.

The study asked students and teachers about online news providers’ right to publish stories without government censorship. Seventy-three percent of teachers and 60 percent of students were supportive of that right, echoing somewhat the proportions responding to whether newspapers should seek government approval before running their stories. To me, this is concerning, especially now that the President of the United States is attempting to discredit the press.

Is there a difference in levels of trust for different media between students and their teachers? The highest trust for both students (83 percent) and teachers (91 percent) is news printed in newspapers. The trust placed on the information in newspapers was similar to information from friends and family. The lowest trust for both students (49 percent) and teachers (34 percent) was in social media. This was also the biggest gap between students and teachers.

The hypocrisy remains, however. Sixty-three percent of students believe high school students should be able to report on controversial issues in their student newspapers without the approval of school authorities. Only 37 percent of teachers agreed. Those numbers haven’t changed much since 2006.

In an age of high levels of distrust in government, to suggest censorship is an answer to an overreach of press freedom or for it to monitor “offensive” content seems strange. Three-quarters of teachers and almost 60 percent of students unquestioningly support the First Amendment. Why not look to the “market” as the answer? Don’t like a source, don’t read it.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.