WELCOME

On March 29, Facebook removed three posts to the site

Aug. 6, 2017 by Kenneth Newton

On March 29, Facebook removed three posts to the site that were "not in the public interest." These four posts were also the last two posts to be removed.

On Saturday, Facebook banned an essay written by Alex Jones that had been posted on October 16, 2013. In it, Jones claimed that women who want abortions should "make sure that the abortion doctor has seen both sides of the story." Jones then said, "I'm not asking for any special favors from you and I'm not asking for anyone's money, I'm asking for your privacy."  Jones then claimed that his own doctor had told him in writing that his abortion care was "not an issue as long as you take care of yourself." Jones then went on to claim that "all of the patients in [the clinic] are under the age of 18 and they're going to die every two months, not just this one time." Jones has been charged with a number of charges including conspiracy to defraud, making false statements, and providing false information. Last week, social media platforms took notice of the move. Twitter responded with a petition , asking Facebook to reconsider its decision.

The Facebook-YouTube distinction makes sense. For most online platforms (including Twitter and YouTube), the only thing separating content from fact is that, once it is posted, it's up to the advertiser to decide whether to back it up or not. In other words, there is a right and a duty to back down when someone who is clearly wrong does something that is absolutely not in the public interest.

The problem with this kind of content has been obvious for a few years now . The problem is that it is often the users themselves that are at fault. If someone posts such content in a way that violates the First Amendment, they are effectively at fault.

The Facebook ban is not limited to Alex Jones' claims. On February 22, 2014, Twitter suspended three more posts to its account with the following message: "We will not tolerate any content that is not in the public interest."

In other words, Twitter's decision to ban "hate" for the second time in a while is an act of censorship.  The move was a sign the company was moving in such a way that it would violate the First Amendment. In this case, the company is at fault.

"I was surprised to see a company who has been doing just that for years and who has been following a policy of 'allowing people to express their ideas on social media,'