One of the most ironic developments this year has been watching those who champion a bakery’s right to deny service to a same-sex couple on the grounds of “First Amendment rights” become outraged over Trump being banned from Twitter and Facebook. Ah, the supporters of Trump. It’s a tiring situation. Beyond their blatant hypocrisy, it appears many of these individuals could benefit from a refresher on what the First Amendment actually entails and the protections it offers.
Understanding the First Amendment
Here’s the full text of the First Amendment:
“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.”
Remember, Congress is the entity that cannot infringe upon free speech. Twitter and Facebook are not Congress. These social media platforms are private companies that can decide who to permit on their sites and who to remove. They have their own user agreements that everyone accepts when they sign up. If someone breaks those rules, they can be banned at any time.
The Bakery Case Revisited
Let’s quickly revisit the bakery case because I don’t want this to be misconstrued. It’s indeed hypocritical for individuals who support the bakery’s discriminatory practices to now complain about Trump’s removal from social media. However, these scenarios are not identical. Social media platforms are not banning Trump and his followers based on their identity; they’re doing so due to their actions that threaten democratic values. After multiple warnings, they continued to disseminate false claims about a “rigged” election, inciting unrest and attempting to orchestrate a government takeover.
The bakery’s refusal to serve is a violation of civil rights; Twitter is merely removing a disruptive customer. A valid reason for the bakery to refuse service would have been if the couple had engaged in outrageous behavior, like causing a scene during peak hours. In that case, the bakery could rightfully ask them to leave.
Concerns About Precedents
Some civil rights organizations and political figures express concerns that private companies banning Trump for his “opinions” might set a troubling precedent for tech control. They fear that large platforms could refuse service to anyone, potentially based on race, gender, or religion. Yet, these identities are protected by law and numerous Supreme Court rulings.
Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and others are not denying Trump service due to who he is. They refuse him because he has severely undermined our country. This is not a breach of constitutional rights; far from it.
The Free Market at Work
What we’re witnessing is simply the free market functioning as intended. Conservatives often tout unregulated markets as the best way to run the economy, arguing that businesses should have the liberty to refuse service if they wish. The market will adjust, they say! In this instance, the free market has done exactly what its advocates claim it should: it has removed harmful entities from its fold.
No one’s constitutional rights were violated in the process.
Further Reading
For more insights into home insemination methods, visit this blog. For comprehensive information on artificial insemination kits, check out Make a Mom. Additionally, Resolve.org offers excellent resources for family-building options.
Search Queries:
- What are First Amendment rights?
- Can private companies restrict free speech?
- Understanding civil rights violations
- Social media bans and free speech
- Home insemination methods and kits
Summary
The article emphasizes that social media companies like Twitter and Facebook are not infringing on constitutional rights by banning individuals; rather, they are acting as private entities enforcing their user agreements. It compares this to the bakery case, arguing that civil rights take precedence over personal beliefs, and highlights the importance of maintaining democratic values over individual opinions.
Keyphrase: First Amendment rights
Tags: [“home insemination kit”, “home insemination syringe”, “self insemination”]