Is Banning Alex Jones A Free Speech Issue? No.
Here we are again.
Something is said that is so egrigious by someone with prominence that the structures that support the invidiual begin to turn their backs to them. We've seen this happen plenty of times before and most famously with brands pulling their advertising from certain pieces of media. We can think back to the infamous case of Duck Dynasty who saw their advertisements pulled due to some disparaging remarks by actors on the show. Inevitably, when this sort of corporate speech is exercised, there are a chorus of voices pointing out the miscarriage of spoken justice these actions represent. I'm here to ask you to lay down your pitchforks and listen to the facts for a few moments. Setting aside any political associations, what is happening here is not an affront to our freedoms. It is way, way more bland than that.
What spurred this particular post is the recent news that Apple, YouTube, and several others have removed the content of well-known nutty guy Alex Jones from their service. His channel on YouTube alone boasted two million subscribers, an incredible reach for someone so lacking in credibility. There is a tangible furvor around the internet with regards to this move and inevitably the idea of free speech bubbles to the top of many minds. However, these moves are completely legal and, in my opinion, do not warrant the outrage many are expressing.
First and foremost, whether it is the case of Alex Jones or Duck Dynasty, the rights of the coporation must be taken into account. Legally, the 1st Amendment protects us from censorship by the government and the government alone with few exceptions, which we'll talk about later. Our culture has instilled in us a belief that we do not face any restrictions on the things we say and, for the most part, that is absolutely true. What isn't discussed as much is the idea that although we are able to say almost whatever we'd like, short of violence, we are not protected against private reaction. If I was to publicly say something disparaging against my employer, they would be within their right to let me go.
Brands exist on a tightrope and they are constantly fending off this issue and that which undermine a brand's image. Building up public perception of a brand can take years, if that perception even takes root in the first place. A company's name is one of their most important assets. It isn't unreasonable for a company to not want to be associated with hate speech. Alex Jones is free to say whatever he would like, but his speech doesn't overrule the right of a company to maintain their image.
In the case of Alex Jones, his speech has at times put him in a place where even his protection under the 1st Amendment begins to erode away. This brings to mind Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire and other Supreme Court cases which allowed for legal action with regards to certain forms of speech. Writing the majority opinion in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Justice Murphy famously pointed out that there are certain, narrow types of speech we restrict such as "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Because of the nature of Alex Jones' denial of the Sandy Hook massacre, a defamation lawsuit is currently being litigated aginst Jones by a number of the families who tragically lost their children during the shooting. His words in this case are not clearly protected. Rulings such as Caplinsky v. New Hampshire do open up the possibility of legal action but the connection must still be proven in court. The ruling at the very least gets the teams on the field.
I'm one who will always value a diversity of views and opinions, but all of these companies were fully within their right to take the actions they did. Reducing the reach of someone's voice does not completely extinguish it, and with a followling as massive as Jones', there's no doubt he will find an ample platform to express his views. An argument such as this tends to end up being an argument of broadcast potential and not whether the speech was actually restricted. Logically speaking, even if all these companies dropped Jones, Comcast dropped his internet, and Verizon cancelled his phone service, he would still have the ability to go outside on a literal soap box and speak his mind. He could still converse among friends and colleagues. What Facebook and others did was not restrict his speech, but simply reduced his reach. He'll surely be fine.
A brand's image is so important I'm finding myself mentioning it a second time. The world will continue to turn without Alex Jones on Spotify, and the public discourse will continue to be muddy and complex. We must remember, though, to be careful with our words. Not all speech is protected under the 1st Amendment, though most of it is. We are not allowed to speak in a way that would incite violence, publish demonstrably untrue information about an individual, or cause a movie theatre to panic by shouting fire. In all of these cases, we would deservedly encounter retribution for our actions. This is as it should be. Speech teeters on a delicate balance, but in the end the cases which shaped the 1st Amendment were decided in the name of protecting the rights of others as well.
Freedom of speech does not mean speech is free of consquences.
