Any well-organized government faces two conflicting ideas, first, that the government must protect the life, liberty, and property of their citizens. The magistrate threatens violence to ensure these rights, and in a just society stealing another man’s possessions, or enslaving him, will in turn lead to violence and imprisonment from the state. Second, the government may not intervene in the business of the private sphere, insofar as the actions of that sphere do not infringe upon those who are not party to it. That is to say that a church may practice baptism, Eucharist, speaking in tongues, etc., but may not practice cannibalism as it poses a danger to the public. A private sphere may choose to excommunicate any member it so wishes, with no need to consult the government nor the public at large.
Additionally, in guaranteeing these rights, the government must not infringe on any other rights. Consider a hypothetical in which the government could ensure the elimination of crime by assigning a police officer to a watch over each citizen day and night – ensuring no laws are broken. In doing so, the magistrate secures life and property by thwarting murder and theft, yet violates the right to liberty by intruding on privacy. Thus, the two roles of the magistrate often conflict. Safeguarding the rights of individuals as well as the rights of the private sector does, in one case, lead to the dilemma of “deplatforming” in the private sphere.
Alex Jones, far-right conspiracy theorist, has frequently experienced this excommunication over the last decade. The most influential social media platforms, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify, have all banned Alex Jones and other far-right ideologues over the past few years. This is consistent with the rights of the private sphere: they are privately owned enterprises that may refuse service or deny a platform to anyone they wish. A problem arises in that when all available platforms ban a person, where then do they turn?
Consider a situation in which one restaurant refuses service to a customer because of their political beliefs – a refusal that is completely in their right. Yet if all restaurants in a given community refuse service to this political extremist, where then can they eat? Apply the same to grocery stores, buying and selling realty, going to school, etc. If we believe that the core function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property from one another, then the liberty of this political extremist is inhibited. In a similar manner, when every platform rejects Alex Jones, is his right to free speech not being infringed upon? His removal from the social media giants effectively removes him from his audience and his livelihood.
This is not to say Alex Jones is necessarily good, or even worthy of being on these platforms. Jones’ rhetoric is undoubtedly vile and frequently untrue, yet hateful free speech must be as equally protected as uncontroversial speech. In a time where most communication is digital, blocking access from online platforms is nearly equivalent to blocking one’s ability to be heard at all.
Thus, we reach the conflicting ideas we first mentioned: Alex Jones is guaranteed the right to free speech, and social media companies are guaranteed freedom to exclude who they wish. We must somehow solve this impasse, and the least damaging option is to restore Jones to these platforms. If we believe that a government’s first obligation under the social contract is to its citizens, then although governments are also obligated to preserve the sanctity of private spheres, those spheres must sometimes be infringed upon for the better of the people, such as in the hypothetical of the cannibalistic church. Similarly, these platforms present a public danger by removing certain voices and ideas (however untrue or hateful) that impedes on peoples right to participate in a civil society. As such, the only choice a fair government can make is to ensure equal freedom of speech on influential platforms.