Government Pressure Against Free Speech

One of the serious challenges faces by news sources covering news of third parties, independent candidates, and independent political movements is external pressure not to cover them.  As we approach Independence Day, Americans wisely recall that news sources are protected by the Constitution, in particular the First Amendment, which provides “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.” and by the Fourteenth Amendment, which extends these restrictions to the states.

Fortunately we are in free America, not unfree Europe in which laws are appearing to ban what is loosely termed ‘hate speech’.  We Americans have neither forbidden political speech nor compelled political speech.  We may vehemently disagree with each other’s political opinions, but we defend their right to express them or to remain silent about them.

The restrictions of the Bill of Rights on the government were meant to be interpreted broadly.  Americans understand ‘the press’ to include not only hand-set type and the grape-screw press but also the modern internet.  The government that is forbidden to assassinate citizens is equally forbidden to hire the local mafia chapter to carry out a hit job. With respect to the press, just as Congress is forbidden to pass laws abridging freedom of speech, so also it is nominally forbidden to pressure private enterprise to censor political speech  (never mind misled folks who claim that only government can censor).

Unfortunately, Congress does not appear to be obeying the First Amendment, as witness recent acts of the House Committee on Homeland Security.  Of course, anyone who refers to America as der Heimatland (“the homeland”) , a phrase properly lined up with ‘blood and soil’, should be greeted with some suspicion, but in this case the suspicion is fully justified.  Independent Political Report received today a missive from the conservative social media site Gab, reporting on their recent interaction with that House Committee.

Under the guise of a request by the General Accounting Office for information, readers may well hear an implicit demand for press censorship, much along the lines of the old Mob shakedown ‘Nice store you have here.  It would be a shame if anything happened to it.’.  In this case, it’s a series of questions that may be read as instructions on how to accomplish the censorship.   The Gab response to the request was in the negative, and emphatically blunt.

We quote their full press release:

Gab News can exclusively report that members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security have requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine the utilization of social media and gaming platforms by “domestic extremists.”

Earlier this week Gab received an email from the GAO asking us to take part in the study and provide information on our business and users. Gab will not be participating in this study and will not be providing any information to the GAO. Our policies on First Amendment-protected speech are well known and are the industry standard for free speech online. We will not scapegoat our users or undermine the operation of our business to demonize normal Americans who have serious concerns with the direction of the nation and our leaders.

Our response to the GAO was as follows:

The most violent domestic extremist content we see on the Internet comes from the President of the United States, who is funding a meat grinder in Ukraine, cheering the burning of American cities in 2020, jailing peaceful protestors from January 6th, and openly advocating child genital mutilation from his Twitter account. We suggest you start there. Otherwise, we’re not interested in your study.

In the interest of transparency we will share the full request below so the public is aware of how their tax dollars are being spent.

Good afternoon,

We are reaching out from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO is an independent, non-partisan agency that evaluates federal programs for the U.S. Congress.

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security requested that GAO examine domestic violent extremists’ use of social media and gaming platforms. As part of our work, we are interested in hearing from a range of social media and gaming companies about their platforms, including community guidelines, and procedures for coordinating with external stakeholders if applicable.

We have selected Gab as part of our study. We would appreciate receiving your perspectives by responding to the questions below. Please note that we will not attribute information to any company representative by name in our public report. If we use information received from Gab in our report, we will send those statements to you for review, including to determine whether you would like each statement to appear as “representatives of Gab” or “representatives of a social media company.”

Your responses are valuable in helping us inform the U.S. Congress about online platforms’ approaches to handling violent extremist content, and we really appreciate your time.

Please provide written responses by replying to this email by Thursday, July 13.

1.    Please provide an overview of Gab’s goals as a platform and how it generates its revenue (e.g. user fees, advertising, data sales).

2.    In its Terms of Service, Gab states that its policy is “to allow all speech which is permitted by the First Amendment and to disallow all speech which is not permitted by the First Amendment,” however the terms do not explicitly mention any policies related to violent extremist content. To what extent does Gab have policies or take action to limit the spread of violent extremist content that may appear on the platform and is not illegal under U.S. law? How, if at all, does Gab define this type of content?

3.    Other than Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) and policies related to child sexual abuse material, what laws and regulations, if any, does Gab consider in making decisions about domestic violent extremism that may appear on the platform?

4.    What strategies and tools, if any, does Gab use to identify and mitigate domestic violent extremist content (e.g. automated or human reviews, user reporting)?

a.    What redress mechanisms, if any, exist for users who believe their speech has been unfairly or inappropriately stifled?

5.    What challenges, if any, does Gab face in identifying and mitigating domestic violent extremist content?

6.    To the extent that Gab becomes aware of a potential threat on its platform, what actions, if any, does Gab take in response?

7.    To what extent does Gab work with federal, state, or local agencies on issues related to domestic violent extremist content (e.g. notifying law enforcement of threats, partnerships or coordination, information-sharing)?

a.    Please describe the nature of the coordination, if any, including which agencies you work with.

8.    What, if anything, would you like federal agencies to know or do related to addressing domestic violent extremism on social media and gaming platforms?

Thank you in advance for assisting us with our work. Please let us know if you have any questions.

Regards,

GAO Social Media Study team