Can freedom of speech be sacrificed for democracy?
The US has already done this.
There is not much good to be learned from the American election race. It can rightfully be considered the most controversial in the history of the country. Politicians are not squeamish about winning. While Donald Trump supports the civil war-hungry right, Joe Biden and the Democrats gave carte blanche to anti-racist protesters in the summer, which turned into riots on the streets of American cities. While Donald Trump spins a long history of corruption in the Biden family, opponents of the president have said he was tax evasion. And all this against the backdrop of an unprecedented crisis and the coronavirus pandemic, which has already claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
It is sometimes difficult to believe that we are talking about the United States of America. Such dirty pre-election games would be appropriate in developing countries like Ukraine. But we see how the world capital of democracy sinks to openly vile methods of struggle, trampling even its own constitution. The first amendment to this venerated American document guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech and press. Or rather, it guaranteed.
In the spring, the US President signed a decree regulating the activities of social networks. The document implied bringing to justice companies “involved in censorship and political actions”. American analysts have questioned this decree, considering it a threat to freedom of speech, which in the United States is guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution. But it would be wrong to turn this article into one where only Trump is criticized. Yes, his decision can rightly be called radical, because we are talking about pressure. On the other hand, the decision was a retaliatory measure that everyone persistently ignores.
First, Republicans have consistently argued that social media drowned out conservative opinion. Twitter has blocked Donald Trump’s posts altogether. On the one hand, this may seem logical. The publication violates the policy of the social network about disinformation, which means it is deleted, although it was made by the head of the world power. It is assumed that all such publications will be removed. At this stage, problems arise.
First of all, the rules are created exclusively by the social network, which means that it can well manipulate and abuse them. Recently, Facebook and Twitter began blocking a New York Post article about Joe Biden’s ties to the Ukrainian company Burisma, where his son Hunter worked.
Under the pretext of inaccurate information, users of social networks were forbidden to publish a link to an article by The Post. But why no one notices that the system is working unilaterally? Or do pro-democratic media never abuse the information resource? Of course it is not. During the notorious Russian meddling scandal, they did not miss a single opportunity to criticize Trump. As is now known, many of the accusations did not have strong evidence. But where was the social media punitive mechanism then?
We constantly hear about Trump’s posts being blocked for disinformation or flagged as unconfirmed. And this is not at all a concern for impressionable users who are ready to trust the president. Caring is a cover for a banal political tool. He is able to turn a person into a liar. This is a great anti-advertisement when it comes to Trump. But in a broad sense, such a system is a violation of freedom of speech.
Not only Trump lives in the United States, and not only Trump uses social media. Moreover, social media was created precisely to enable people to express their opinions. Now this fact burdens a very big “BUT”, which deprives users of the possibility of freedom of speech. If the publication seems to someone “wrong”, it will simply be blocked.
Of course, some statements really should be blocked. Only Facebook was somehow slow to respond when American far-right groups used the social network to recruit their ranks.
The radicals from Kenosha also used Facebook. On the social network, they spread calls for riots. A neo-Nazi rally in Charlottesville on August 12, 2017, resulting in a murder, was also collected via Facebook.
Back in February 2020, a report from the Networking Research Institute showed an increase in extremist rhetoric in the American segment of Facebook. Radicals, in particular, called for reprisals against law enforcement officers.
The problem is that the American ruling elites have politicized social media. The brainchild of Mark Zuckerberg is a great way to create the right set while leaving only the “right” posts. From a legal point of view, this does not violate the first amendment, according to which “Congress shall not issue a single law” restricting freedom of speech or press.
At the same time, thoughts, determined by someone as undesirable, simply will not be heard.
Ironically, in matters of publicity, the United States has held an unofficial position of judge for many years. American human rights activists regularly criticized other governments for abusing censorship. Special attention has always been paid to Russia and China. But the presidential election unmasked the champions of democracy, showing that the media for the American elites is the same tool for the media as for Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. Unfortunately, the line between methods that are generally considered totalitarian and those that are called democratic is too thin.