An era when citizens are told that the only way to prove one’s allegiance to the US is to pledge allegiance to the president. Yet, citizens are living in an era when this most fundamental act of patriotism is characterised by one of the two major political parties as tantamount to treason. This is the right of all Americans, regardless of party affiliation. To define patriotism as blind allegiance to a political figure is to fundamentally misconstrue the very core of American democracy as enshrined in the First Amendment – it is the right, indeed, the responsibility of citizens to engage in debate over matters of public concern and to criticise the government when it fails to live up to the ideals on which the US was founded. This attack on freedom of expression is not only dangerous, it is profoundly un-American. Obscured by a veneer of false patriotism and jingoistic rhetoric, president Trump is eroding one of America’s most fundamental freedoms. And his tactic seems to be working: a recent poll by Hill-HarrisX revealed that even 40% of Democrats and Independents view criticising the government as unpatriotic (unsurprisingly, a much higher proportion of Republicans share this view). Of particular concern is the president’s attack on the right of every American to criticise state actors and acts, which the United States Supreme Court recognises as a prerogative of citizenship. If we ignore the spectacle and rhetoric surrounding the event, which amounted to little more than a far-right extremist conference hosted by the White House, we are left with a naked attempt by Trump to undermine the First Amendment. These are a few of the many reasons why president Trump’s July Social Media Summit, staged in the White House and to which no social media companies were invited, was so outrageous.
#Freedom of speech amendment free
This means that Facebook, Twitter, and others have free speech rights.
Moreover, the First Amendment protects the expression of corporations and other associations, as well as individuals. Therefore, contrary to what many Americans (and apparently the president) believe, there is no First Amendment right to use Twitter or have a Facebook page.Īs private entities, social media companies are free to adopt policies relating to user content and to remove users who violate such policies without implicating the First Amendment. It does not constrain the conduct of private individuals or entities, including businesses. This means that the protections afforded under the First Amendment are only triggered when the state takes an action that restricts expression. This is a distinction with a very important difference that is lost in the clamour of the Trump era. Rather, it is freedom, generally speaking, from the government interfering with you saying anything you want, whenever and wherever you want to say it. Indeed, free speech is not the right to say anything you want, whenever and wherever you want to say it. In the US, there exists an enduring tradition of “negative freedom”, which is defined as freedom from government interference. 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.Ĭurrent debates surrounding freedom of expression reveal a key misunderstanding of the nature and scope of the First Amendment.