“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech”. This quote from Benjamin Franklin is increasingly applicable in the present age as cases of censorship are on the rise. The recent ban on President Trump by social media giants has shocked the world and its far-reaching implications are being debated by both sides of the political spectrum. However, there remains a question yet to be answered: Are social media companies justified in their moves to permanently suspend the president? 

No. 

The silencing of President Trump by social media is dangerous because it is a violation of the first amendment and can be used as a precedent in oppressing diverse viewpoints. 

Public censorship of the president is an attack on the first amendment because it bars Trump from speaking his views and cuts him off from his supporters. The first amendment explicitly protects an individual’s right to free speech (and implicitly restricts in cases that spark violence) and Trump was barred from this right. Also, big tech’s move to suspend Trump obstructs him from connecting with millions of supporters. Alongside this political strategy to enervate Trump’s public support, social media’s ban has violated the law by actively suppressing Trump’s posts condemning the capitol riots. Social media infringed Trump’s right to free speech by censoring him and eroding his public presence; additionally, this censorship can play a role in leading to anarchy. 

The ban on Trump sets a dangerous precedent that silences alternative perspectives, leading to powerful corporations deciding what can circulate, setting the stage for turmoil. If social media titans can silence the most powerful man on the planet, then they can silence anyone they wish. Law experts disagree with Trump’s suspension because it leads to companies such as Twitter being able to dictate what kind of speech people can receive. Suppression of speech is characteristic of communist states, in which dissent is not tolerated. When tech giants diminish countering views, they conjure a spirit of unrest, which tends to lead to violence. But do social media companies, as private entities, have the right to regulate content? The New York Times journalist Jeremy Engle points out that tech companies can legally regulate content that breach their anti-violence guidelines and Trump was suspended for allegedly provoking riots. However, they contradict their own guidelines by allowing accounts such as of Iran’s Ayatollah, that actively incites violence, to remain while Trump’s posts condemning violence were quickly taken down. American freedom is threatened to be replaced by tyranny because of social media deciding what gets to circulate and what doesn’t, accumulating potential for mass unrest. 

Social media companies must be prosecuted and boycotted in order to show the consequences of censorship. Users should leave these platforms and join apps such as Telegram in order to resist corporate censorship by ultimately limiting their profits. Leaving tech giants to regulate free speech will end up backfiring in the form of an Orwellian regime.