Freedom of speech and social media superpowers to silence Donald Trump

ARTICLES PREVIOUS

David R. Lorenzo-

The cancellation of the accounts of the president of the United States, Donald Trump, by the main social networks has ignited a global debate, about whether that decision is correct, or if these technology companies can limit freedom of expression, silence those who find unpleasant or take sides in political conflicts.

The companies Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube cascaded down the accounts of President Trump, after he delivered a speech in Washington on January 6 before a crowd in front of the White House, and then many of those present they stormed the headquarters of the Congress, with a balance of 5 dead.

The decision represents an unexpected 180 degree turn, since these technology companies operated under the philosophy of allowing the broadest freedom of expression, of not censoring political and ideological issues and of not becoming judge and party. They only censored publications that spread advocacy for hatred, violence and discrimination.

But, as cyber law does not have well-defined and homogeneous standards worldwide, but is in the process of construction, either with the approval of laws, jurisprudence and doctrines, measures like that cause conflicts of opinion and exacerbate passions.

In the United States, the main legal basis is in the first amendment to the Constitution, approved on December 15, 1791, which, although it contains a sentence with few words, by establishing that Congress cannot limit freedom of expression Neither press, it does contain many rights, ratified by jurisprudence.

Nor does the United States government have as many powers to limit press freedom as social media and its owners, who made Trump the most ignominious man in the world.

THOSE THAT PROMOTE THE CLOSURE OF THE ACCOUNTS

For some lawyers and communication experts, freedom of expression does not include the power of one person to attack another. Others understand that in the case of the species, the closure of the accounts is a serious but legitimate fact.

Similarly, some argue that social media can delete any account when there is imminence that violent speech could lead to illegal action.

Also, there are people who say that in certain moments, for example when genocide, violence and discrimination are incited, freedom of expression can be limited.

THOSE WHO CRITICIZE THE CLOSURE

On the contrary, those who criticize the decision of the corporations, understand that regardless of who the affected person is, these companies are vetoing and denying the dissemination of their ideas, and that is a really worrying precedent.

They consider that these companies are platforms through which citizens must express themselves freely, and they should not constitute themselves as courts, or any other body of justice to judge according to their opinions and decide who can and who cannot give their opinion

Those who reject the action consider that social networks should be guided by international standards and not by decisions of the owners of Facebook and Instagram, Mark Zuckerberg; from Twitter, Jack Dorsey, or from Youtube, Jawed Karim.

One of the harshest criticisms came from the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, who said that freedom of expression can only be restricted “in accordance with the law and within a framework defined by legislators and not by decision of the administrators of the social media platforms ”.

Likewise, the President of Mexico Andrés Manuel López Obrador said: “What they did a few days ago in the United States is a bad sign and is a bad omen, because the fact that private companies can decide, silence and censor, goes against freedom”.

In particular, I believe that the owners of the technological platforms exceeded their rights, closing the accounts of Donald Trump and more than 70 thousand subscribers and becoming judge and party, with super powers, when judging political and ideological positions. As well.

I believe that this fact should lead the international community to think about approving regulations that regulate the operation of social networks and the governments themselves, because if it is not done, tomorrow will be worse, and regulators will not be able to be regulated, much less , you can put the bell to the cat.

By David R. Lorenzo

–