![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/243\/2021\/01\/bird-in-park-01.09.21-01.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLies and conspiracy theories<\/h2>\n
There is no constitutional right to spread lies and conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n
There is also no constitutional right to incite insurrection. Trump has been crying \u201celection fraud!\u201d since before the election started, despite the fact that there is no evidence of widespread fraud, much less that the election was \u201crigged.\u201d His own cabinet confirmed that the election was clean \u2013 he fired those who told him what he didn\u2019t want to hear.<\/p>\n
But that kept his base riled up, and when he encouraged them, thousands showed up at the Capitol to protest the confirmation of Biden\u2019s win. Hundreds forced their way in, disrupting the confirmation process, vandalizing the building, and causing the deaths of at least five people.<\/p>\n
If Trump hadn\u2019t been tweeting lies for months, there would have been no insurrection.<\/p>\n
Even after responsible people in both parties were encouraging him to denounce the insurrection, he continued to insist the election was \u201cstolen.\u201d<\/p>\n
Actions have consequences. Words can be weapons. By all means we must prosecute the people who attacked the Capitol and hand down appropriate jail sentences. But we cannot ignore what got them there.<\/p>\n
It is blatantly irresponsible to allow Trump to continue inciting insurrection \u2013 which he surely would do, because it\u2019s what he\u2019s always done.<\/p>\n
There is no First Amendment right to Twitter<\/h2>\n
In case anyone is unclear, the First Amendment<\/a> applies only to government censorship, not to private entities. Or, as others have said, freedom of the press only applies to people who own a printing press. You have no right to have your opinion published by The New York Times<\/em>, CNN, or Fox News. They choose what they publish, period.<\/p>\n Are social media platforms publishers? Utilities? Something else? There needs to be a public debate on this, but under the current law they are private entities and if you violate their terms of service, it\u2019s perfectly legal for them to kick you off.<\/p>\n I cheered Trump getting kicked off Twitter. My libertarian and leftist friends were less thrilled.<\/p>\n Some of them believe there should never be any restrictions on speech as a matter of principle, no matter what the consequences. Others are concerned that if they ban Trump today, they could ban someone they like tomorrow (and in some cases, they already have). These are not idle concerns.<\/p>\n I\u2019m part of a minority religion. I occasionally hear Christians calling for me to be censored because I\u2019m \u201charming the Kingdom of God.\u201d I occasionally hear atheists calling for me to be silenced because I\u2019m \u201cspreading unreason.\u201d Those of us who live and work outside the mainstream (whether spiritual, political, or otherwise) are always in danger of being silenced, or just shouted down. There is a need to protect unpopular speech.<\/p>\n But the answer can\u2019t be \u201canything goes\u201d for reasons that were made abundantly clear on January 6.<\/p>\n We judge what Trump or anyone else says based on what their words inspire others to do.<\/p>\n Our common society puts a lot of emphasis on intent. So does the law: intent makes the difference between murder, manslaughter, and self defense. Some people are arguing that Trump never intended for his supporters to storm the Capitol. That may or may not be true. I tend to agree with the Articles of Impeachment<\/a>: \u201cHe \u2026 made statements that, in context, encouraged\u2014and foreseeably resulted in\u2014lawless action at the Capitol.\u201d<\/p>\n Results matter. You may not mean to kill someone when you drive drunk, but if you do it will not be considered an accident and you will be held accountable.<\/p>\n Trump is ultimately responsible for the insurrection. He must be held accountable, and he must be constrained from further incitements to violence.<\/p>\n The remedy for bad governance is an election. We had that, Trump lost, and on January 20 \u2013 if not before \u2013 he will no longer be President. That stops him from continuing his regressive policies and destructive governance.<\/p>\n What is the remedy for his lies and incitement of insurrection, which he has shown will never stop?<\/p>\n This isn\u2019t speech offensive to some that must be tolerated in the name of a free society. This isn\u2019t politically unpopular speech that is constitutionally protected and rightly so. This isn\u2019t even some bizarre religious belief based on a long-outdated cultural norm that is still meaningful to some people.<\/p>\n These are lies and conspiracy theories that incite violence and undermine confidence in the democratic process.<\/p>\n What is the alternative to kicking him off Twitter?<\/p>\n That\u2019s not a rhetorical question. If you have a better alternative, let\u2019s hear it. But \u201cjust ignore him\u201d isn\u2019t a viable option, because too many people won\u2019t.<\/p>\n I understand the reluctance to grant this kind of power to corporations and their leaders. Or rather, to affirm it, since they currently have it. There is always the opportunity for abuse and corruption.<\/p>\n At the same time, making everything the Wild West with no rules and accountability presents opportunities for another kind of abuse \u2013 the kind we\u2019re experiencing now.<\/p>\n We need not and should not accept one form of abuse to avoid another form of abuse. We need checks and balances to prevent any abuse.<\/p>\n The law has not caught up to the internet era. My preference is for \u201cBig Tech\u201d to be treated like a utility and heavily regulated. Twitter, Facebook, and other tech companies should have meaningful oversight by people subject to elections.<\/p>\n Like any other public policy, we can and should debate where to draw the lines of acceptable conduct on social media. My preference is for few rules loosely enforced on ideas, clear rules strictly enforced on personal attacks and harassment, and no tolerance on calls for violence \u2013 or for spreading known lies.<\/p>\n Maybe you think the rules should be looser. Maybe you think they should be tighter. I\u2019m all for having that debate.<\/p>\n But where ever you draw the line, Trump\u2019s lies, conspiracy theories, and incitement of insurrection are on the wrong side of it.<\/p>\n The only problem I have with Twitter kicking him off is that they took so long to do it.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\nBanning Trump is a dangerous precedent<\/h2>\n
Results matter<\/h2>\n
What is the alternative?<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nThe solution to abuse of power is checks and balances<\/h2>\n
Where ever the line is, Trump is over it<\/h2>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nI\u2019m not going to entertain whataboutism<\/h2>\n