With the emergence of social networking platforms like Facebook and Twitter, the environment has quickly changed concerning what a company operating in the private sector is.
This is extremely important to understand because some compromising conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation are using the private company factor
to justify not introducing regulations that would limit how they censor users’ content.
At face value this first appears to be the right conclusion to draw because of the desire for most people on the right to keep the government from overextending its authority and purpose.
The challenge is that we now live in a digital age, where in the case of social networking platforms, they can be forced to comply with laws and regulations around the world, which can then be imposed upon American citizens if they’re embraced by the social networks.
So under the guise of private enterprise, foreign governments can use the social networks as a means to transform the U.S. into their image. For that reason alone, the need to define social networking platforms differently is vital to the American people.
A cursory glance would suggest it has the right to do what it wants with its customers, but when that includes the direct influence of foreign governments and their laws, they become a de facto extension of those governments in relationship to U.S. citizens.
By that happening, it has become a way of bypassing the free speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, with the consequence being foreign laws becoming the guidelines of these companies.
The point is because of the entanglement of social networking platforms based in the U.S. with foreign governments, it has created a new type of entity that includes both the private sector and foreign nations. Historically speaking, this is a form of fascism, in the sense of mixing private enterprise with the government.
This is why social networking companies should be required to adhere to the free speech requirements of the U.S. constitution, rather than those traditionally allowed for companies operating in the private sector.
Social networking platforms aren’t the same as multi-national corporations that are required to operate in conjunction with the laws of each individual nation they have a presence in. The difference is the laws of nations imposed upon Facebook, Twitter and others, are then, in some cases, applied to users in the U.S.
In other words, multi-national corporations aren’t allowed to impose the laws of the nations they operate in on U.S. citizens. But because of the universal nature of fully digital companies, what is required by law in one country can easily be imposed on users in another country, without it being understood to be an attack on its sovereignty.
Since Twitter and others are starting to operate in alignment with hate speech laws and fake news as defined by Europe and other countries, they can no longer be defined as companies doing business only in the private sector.
For that reason they need to be subjected to free speech laws as defined by the U.S. constitution. If not, censorship of the right will continue to get worse, with organizations like the Heritage Foundation giving their hearty approval.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com