Civil discourse in the United States has been hyper-polarized for years. One could claim the split from partisan positions into silos that refuse to speak to each other happened due to the divisive presidency of Donald Trump, others by the struggle between President Barack Obama and the Republican majority opposition in Congress, or by the war in Iraq staged by the administration of President George W. Bush, who himself was elected to the presidency after the contentious election of 2000.
Courtesy of Tilden76
Political theorists could instead mark the division with the Republican revolution of 1994 or from the emergence of the Sixth Party System in the 1980s that cemented the political affiliations of the South, which realigned in the 1960s after President Richard Nixon’s appeal to white Southerners’ racial grievances in the “Southern Strategy.”
More recently, civil discourse moved from the statehouse, town hall or public venue to social media platforms, where no protections of minority voices, nor equal time nor fair debate are guaranteed. Algorithms and ad sales determine who has the loudest voice and who gets to speak to the greatest number of users.
Some social media platforms bill themselves as more than just a place to learn how to fix a kid’s toy, debate the best Marvel villain, post fan theories about Jedis or see photos of loved ones half a world away uploaded just seconds earlier and want to act as de facto public squares for political debate discourse.
Courtesy of Tilden76
Yet, do not be confused for a moment: Social media platforms do not exist to benefit democratic civil discourse or republican ideals — they exist to make money for shareholders either through direct marketing to users or by selling users’ personal information to other companies.
You are not a concerned citizen or a voter on social media, you are 1s and 0s to be traded for cash.
NextDoor is the most naked scam as it requires your physical address to get an account, which it then sells to third parties. You can fix that by logging into NextDoor, then deleting your account. But all platforms sell “you” to products, not vice versa.
Social media platforms can be symbiotic platforms to espouse your ideas on government, share photos of your children with family members or plan bake sales, but do not be confused: Constitutional protections, including the First Amendment, do not apply to social media platforms that are privately owned companies directed by boards of shareholders.
They are governed by bylaws and terms of service, not the Constitution. Social media platforms are like giant big box stores. If people go inside and cause a huge disturbance, security guards can kick them outside the building and not let them back in.
Is that censorship? Yep.
Does it violate the First Amendment? Nope.
The First Amendment only applies to the government — and only prevents the government from censoring the content of what you say. It does not protect your dumb comment from being eviscerated and from you being embarrassed by it.
So, speak wisely.
As a newspaper, we are protected from government censorship, existing because of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, sine qua non. It protects our ability to print what we want and protect our readers’ ability to have their opinions published. We also operate a platform, our Opinion Page, wherein readers can voice their views. We have our guidelines too.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“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.”
The First Amendment only applies to the government — and only prevents the government from censoring the content of what you say. It does not protect your dumb comment from being eviscerated and from you being embarrassed by it.
Generally, a reader who has an objection to another letter will write a rebuttal, addressing those points, but in recent years, some have objected to us printing letters they don’t like, apparently misunderstanding what a newspaper is and does.
Opinions that are “harmful” or “dangerous” just means that the person objecting is too lazy to write a rebuttal. Disagreements are foundational to our republic.
Laziness is not, and we cannot abide.
If you don’t like a letter, write a response. Argue that your opinion is better and list reasons, don’t demand we “deplatform” the authors because they made you sad.
Don’t like an author? Don’t read them. Don’t like a comedian? Don’t listen to the Netflix special. Don’t like a political pundit? Stop tuning into Fox News or CNN or Newsmax or MSNBC to win a gold medal in the Outrage Olympics.
You have better ways to spend your time; read a book, gaze at the stars or teach a neighborhood kid how to paint.
This urge to silence rather than hear is a troublesome, illiberal violation of republican democracy. Rather, the answer to problematic speech is more speech, not censorship. Write letters, speak out and voice your views.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
Editor’s Note
This editorial won First Place at the 2023 Arizona Newspapers Association’s Better Newspapers Contest on Thursday, Aug. 31, in Category 3 [3,500 to 10,000 circulation].
