With My Apologies

What I am about to say is very difficult for me. It is completely out of character. My fingers may immolate as they type the words, but here I go: I agree with Donald Trump.

I agree that he is being mistreated by Facebook and Twitter.  There, I said it. So far, my body has not exploded.

Free speech is all about the protection of what’s unpopular.  All countries allow you to say the inoffensive. It is the degree to which a country allows you to say what offends others that is the measure of speech freedom. And very little is more offensive than what Donald Trump says. So, if we don’t allow him to say what he wants, is that freedom?

Now, neither Facebook nor Twitter are government actors. They are not subject to First Amendment obligations. However, the Founding Fathers never envisioned social media.  I am not saying that the First Amendment should cover Twitter and Facebook and the other platforms that permeate our lives. A newspaper need not publish every letter it receives. But, a newspaper has limited space.  Social media sites do not. While the law should not require what social media does, the concepts of the law should.

There is a story about free speech that I would like the social media kings to hear. 

Two businessmen, an American and a Russian met in Paris and, over drinks, they argued about who’s country is the freest. The American says that his is, of course.  He says that he is nobody special, just a businessman. But, he could get a chance to meet President Biden and he could look that man straight in the face and say, “You are the worst President this country has ever had.” And then he could walk away and be certain that nothing bad would happen to him because of what he’d said.

The Russian chugged his drink and chuckled as he answered, “That’s nothing.  I, too, am just a regular businessman. I don’t even belong to the Party. But, I could find my way to President Putin, and I could look him straight in the eye, and I could say, ‘That President Biden is the worst President the United States has ever had.”

And then there is the scene from the show, “The Lion In Winter”, the story of the battle between Sir Thomas More and Henry VIII. The King wanted More to support him on a critical issue, and More refused on principle. His advisors implored him to compromise his ideals; to agree with the King and thereby save his life.  More said (something like), “If you were chasing the Devil in the forest, and you cut down every tree in order to get to him, where, then, will you hide when the Devil turns on you?” 

When we start cutting down the rights we have to say what we want, we will then have no rights to hide behind when our adversaries come after us.

Of course, there are exceptions. Everybody always says, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” When they say that, they leave out a critical word from the quote. It’s actually, “falselyyell fire in a crowded theater.” It would be criminal not to yell fire in a crowded theater if the theater was actually on fire. So, the question becomes – what is Trump doing?  Is his speech as dangerous as falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater? Or, is it the kind of speech that Sir Thomas More would have said was necessary – the right for the Devil to have his due. 

Yes, the argument goes, that’s all fine most of the time, but what Trump says is factually wrong and we can’t allow him to keep misleading people. Really? Where does that concept logically lead? Is it only accurate speech that deserves protection? Don’t we already have libel and slander laws to take care of that?

Trump’s despicable expressions of his own reality are, no doubt, doing no good for our country. They perpetuate the lies that he so desperately needs his followers to believe. But, that’s just what one side thinks. Neither side has the right to shut down the views of the other side.

O.K. So now I have sided with the Orange Menace. This once. I can assure you, though, that you still won’t catch me ever rooting for the Red Sox.