Application of the First Amendment in the 21st Century, Kaplan Vs. Hudson Jr.
Application of the First Amendment in the 21st Century
In recent years, as the use of social media grew in popularity, a divide has developed between those who support censorship on these platforms and those who oppose such actions. The foundation for arguments in either direction is rooted in how one translates the meaning of the first amendment with regard to large social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Questions like - what purpose is the 1st amendment supposed to serve, and who is bound by the provisions of the first amendment, are common areas of disagreement in this debate.
One of the primary points of discussion when addressing the question of whether social media companies should be allowed to censor content on their platforms is whether you view these online spaces as privately owned businesses, or as public marketplaces of ideas and places where people can express themselves freely. Lincoln Kaplan, in an article titled “Stress Test for Free Speech” from The American Scholar, makes his opinion on the issue quite clear. Kaplan claims that “Facebook and other social media platforms are private companies, so what they distribute is not bound, or even covered by the first amendment.” Kaplan explains that the first amendment applies specifically to the government, restricting it from suppressing criticism, opposing or undesired views. Being that Facebook and the like are not associated with, or an extension of the government in any way, they can do as they please and make decisions that are in the businesses’ self-interest. It is also not part of the press, and therefore once again not bound by the provision in the amendment that protects the freedom of the press.
David L. Hudson Jr. in an article titled “In the Age of Social Media, Expand the Reach of the First Amendment,” from the American Bar Association presents an entirely different view of what social media is, and what kind of limitations on how these companies operate, should or should not be in place. Facebook may have started out as a private company but what it has developed into is something far greater. “When an entity like Facebook engages in censorship, individuals don’t get to participate in the marketplace of ideas and are not allowed the liberty to engage in individual self-fulfillment - just like when a government entity engages in censorship.” Hudson Jr. takes a, perhaps more pragmatic approach to what social media is today. Instead of highlighting the fact that these are private companies being run mostly like a business, he points to how pivotal these platforms are when it comes to self-expression and the sharing of ideas. Today, “Speech takes place online much more so than it does in traditional public forums.” Hudson Jr. claims that in today’s day and age, placing restrictions on users stopping or punishing them for expressing certain content or views would be similar to in public parks or streets.
To Hudson Jr., the purpose of the second amendment includes the idea that everyone should be able to attain self-fulfillment which is partially attained through freedom of expression. It would therefore no doubt be wrong to impose such restrictions on any citizen regardless of the setting. The benefits of allowing free speech outway the losses. In the end, the truth will find its way. Kaplan remains concerned about how these platforms can be used in harmful ways, thus maintaining that censorship is a positive thing that should be used to prevent hate crimes and violence. In essence, both Kaplan and Hudson Jr. believe in the fundamental concept of the need for certain kinds of speech and expression to remain completely unrestricted. This includes government officials, journalist outlets, and any sort of press. What remains is to determine to what extent and reach the freedom of speech should be extended, and how to regulate and adjudicate in a manner that produces the best results possible for everyone involved.