• Home
  • Interviews
  • Profiles
  • Arts
  • Contact Us
Log In
May 21, 2025

  • Home
  • Interviews
  • Profiles
  • Arts
  • Contact Us

HomeLegal ExplainerA Man and His Platform

A Man and His Platform

  • February 5, 2019
  • 0 comments
  • James H, Esq.
  • 0
16
SHARES
FacebookTwitterGooglePinterest
RedditTumblr

Now that I’ve discussed some of the First Amendment legalisms in Gavin McInnes’ lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center. I’d like to talk about something else: deplatforming. As I write this, attorney Ron Coleman is on Twitter discussing his reasons for representing McInnes. Among them:

> THERE IS AN ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM in the courts – something deplatforming circumvents. That circumvention, as practiced now, is not just.

In fact, far from promoting justice, free speech or free anything, deplatforming does the VERY OPPOSITE. >

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) February 5, 2019

> speech – as defined by the cases – as well as other tortious conduct set out in the complaint.

I am not interested in some rarefied True First Amendment jurisprudence that throws my friends under the because the Constitution's penumbras don't reach into Silicon Valley. >

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) February 5, 2019

McInnes devotes quite a bit of energy to this issue in his complaint. Because SPLC has labeled the Proud Boys a hate group, he’s been deplatformed—deprived of his ability to post content on Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms where he’s used to writing. Moreover, he’s also lost revenue streams, as (he says) SPLC and its political allies have targeted that platforms and payment processors to cut him off from the income he earned through his speech.

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one”

— A.J. Liebling

McInnes does not have the constitutional right to publish on Twitter, Facebook, Google, whatever. Those “presses” are owned by Twitter, Facebook, Google, whatever. And McInnes certainly does not have the constitutional right to earn money from his speech. After all, the First Amendment only says you have the right to talk. It says nothing about the right to force other people to let you talk in their yards, or to a right to have someone else pay you to talk.

But it’s still uncomfortable, isn’t it? A handful of companies dominate searching, interpersonal communication, and social networking on the Internet. At their say-so, an Internet person can become an Internet unperson, effectively erased from YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google—virtually everywhere people go—with a few keystrokes.

Quoth the Coleman:

> And not just because today Twitter and Facebook and Instagram came for Gavin McInnes and tomorrow they may come for @Cernovich and, eventually – or maybe before him – for Ron Coleman.

No: Because today they came for Gavin. >

— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) February 5, 2019

And that really bothers me. Today, the Southern Poverty Law Center persuades the Internet titans to punish the Proud Boys because the proud boys are a hate group, and the SPLC and its allies make a case that the Proud Boys’ speech is harming people. Tomorrow, will the Alliance Defending Freedom or the Family Research Council successfully make the same argument about the SPLC and the ACLU?

Or the major Internet players will be the unwilling patsies when a foreign power attempts to influence American elections through a coordinated misinformation campaign. (Nah, that’ll never happen.)

In a perfect world, those of us unsatisfied with Google, Facebook, and Twitter will go create our own platforms, these new platforms will compete with the existing platforms, and the free market will determine who wins. Unfortunately, right now, it’s difficult for something like that to happen. The incumbent players are so big, and so successful, that it is difficult for anyone else to enter the market. Which effectively leaves things in the hands of a very small group of entities.

I’d like to see the federal government address this in the future. Perhaps there needs to be a legal regimen that both respects the First Amendment and imposes certain obligations on Silicon Valley’s biggest players. Or perhaps Google needs to go the way of Ma Bell. I honestly don’t know.

But McInnes’ position on other issues does not invalidate concerns about the power wielded by tech’s biggest firms.

Related Posts

0 comments
BZ/MP RadioInterviewsLegal Explainer

ENCORE: Leaking vs. Whistleblowing

0 comments
Legal Explainer

Of Fake News, Free Speech, Blasphemy, and Hate

0 comments
Legal Explainer

When ‘free speech’ is used to chill free speech

When ‘free speech’ is used to chill fr...

  • February 5, 2019
  • 0 comments

Of Fake News, Free Speech, Blasphemy, and Hate

  • February 22, 2019
  • 0 comments

About author

James H, Esq.

James is a guest contributor to the BZ/MP. A former journalist and longtime lawyer, James provides insightful analysis of legal issues of the day to assist in the general understanding of high profile issues and questions with legal dimensions. (All opinions of our opinion writers and analysts do not reflect the position of BZ/MP or any person affiliated with BZ/MP other than the author themselves.)

Related Posts

0 comments
BZ/MP RadioInterviewsLegal Explainer

ENCORE: Leaking vs. Whistleblowing

0 comments
Legal Explainer

Of Fake News, Free Speech, Blasphemy, and Hate

0 comments
Legal Explainer

When ‘free speech’ is used to chill free speech

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Do not miss

0 comments
BZ/MP RadioInterviewsLegal Explainer

ENCORE: Leaking vs. Whistleblowing

Latest Comments

Copyright © 2020 The Bryant Zamberlan Group

Got a hot tip? Send it to us!

    Your Name (required)

    Your Email (required)

    Subject

    Your Message

    Got a hot tip? Send it to us!

      Your Name (required)

      Your Email (required)

      Video URL

      Attach Video

      Category

      SportNewsTechMusic

      Your Message