Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Politics and Religion
Deplatforming

Deplatforming

Last updated on: January 15, 2021 at 6:00 am by Gene Veith

0 Comments

Deplatforming 2021-01-14T16:57:36-05:00 Gene Veith

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

An agency of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod was cancelled by Facebook, collateral damage in big tech’s “deplatforming” movement that is shutting down free speech on the internet.

The Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty put out a response to the Capital riot entitled “A Prayerful Thought: Vigilante Violence Always Betrays the Cause. . . .Prayer and Faithfulness Fortify the cause.” It was a condemnation of the devolution of the January 6 protests into lawlessness, drawing on Luther’s critique of the Peasant Revolt.

The head of the institute, former Lutheran hour speaker Gregory Seltz, posted it on the Center’s Facebook page. He wanted to “boost” it, so as to give the statement a wider audience. (Facebook allows open business sites to “boost” posts for a fee, whereupon they are circulated far and wide.) But FaceBook wouldn’t allow that. “At a time when we at the LCRL seek to be truth tellers for the sake of our culture (even reconcilers at this moment), we received this notice. REJECTED.”

Evidently, Facebook’s algorithms and nanny-bots can’t distinguish condemning violence from advocating violence.

(You can find the statement, which is quite good, by scrolling down here. Again, Facebook allowed the statement to be posted, just not boosted.)

This is an example of the breathtaking way the big internet corporations have locked out not just individuals from expressing their opinions but entire topics of conversation. It started when Twitter finally banned Donald Trump. (As I have said, if Twitter had done that years ago, Trump would have won re-election, since he wouldn’t have been able to antagonize so many people against him.) The reasoning was that his inflammatory rhetoric was dangerous in this climate of “sedition.” Youtube followed by shutting down his channel.

But then Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, Reddit, Discord, and Pinterest followed suit, banning not only Trump but pro-Trump material and any complaints that the election was stolen. Meanwhile, Amazon and Shopify banned Trump and right wing merchandise. Apple and Google dropped the right wing social media site Parler from their App stores, and Amazon, whose Cloud servers hosted the site, simply shut it down.

One might argue that the actions prevented more violence by preventing radicals from planning their “insurrection,” though the corporations have been very tolerant of the insurrection planned by left wing radicals. But apart from this particular issue, the actions demonstrate the mind-boggling power of big tech.

In the early days, the internet was hailed as a realm of freedom. Gone would be the gatekeepers–the publishing companies, the newspapers, the intellectual elite that determined what information would be disseminated in the public. Now everyone with a computer could have the equivalent of a printing press, with blogs, online forums, desktop publishing, and websites allowing for the true democratization of knowledge and public discourse.

But now, the wild-west of the early internet, with countless players, has become largely controlled by just a few corporations. The gatekeepers have returned, and they can control information and thus their users far more completely than governments ever could.

“Deplatforming” is the tactic used by leftists on campus to “cancel” speakers and views they disapprove of. The idea is not just to censor what they say but to take away the “platform”–the campus lecture, an academic journal, a public debate–that would give their views an audience. (Read this description of deplatforming as a political tactic.) But now the technological platforms are themselves organizing to exert control what is allowed to be said.

Non-Trumpian observers–such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian dissident Alexey Navalny, and the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union—have expressed alarm about this attempt to shut down speech in a free country.

One could reply that the liberties protected in the Bill of Rights apply only to government action. These corporations, being private companies, have the freedom to operate as they like, even when this infringes on civil liberties.

But the issue is more complicated than that. In an article entitled Save The Constitution from Big Tech, Vivek Ramaswamy and constitutional scholar Jed Rubenfeld argue that private infringement on civil liberties may be legally problematic after all. They quote the Supreme Court case Norwood v. Harrison (1973), which ruled that it is “axiomatic,” that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”

They argue, with examples from case law, that the immunities granted tech companies, such as Sec. 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act–which give tech companies immunity from censoring Constitutionally-protected speech–and the threats of politicians to punish companies unless they police “hate speech” make Norwood v. Harrison apply.

Here is another idea of how to legally restrict corporations from doing what government is forbidden to do in violating the Bill of Rights. Use the anti-discrimination statutes. In addition to forbidding discrimination against people for their sex, gender identity, and sexual identity, categories more recently added, these laws at their core forbid discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or creed.”

A “creed” means a belief. It shouldn’t have to just apply to religious creeds–a term that comes from the Latin “credo” for “I believe”–but should have a broader applicability, including political, ideological, or cultural beliefs. To censor someone’s speech or to take away someone’s platform because of their “creed” is an act of discrimination.

Image by �Merry Christmas � from Pixabay

anti-discrimination laws

information technology

Lutheran Center for Religious Liberty

social media

technology corporations

Previous Post

January 14, 2021

Direction from James Madison

Next Post

January 18, 2021 The Return of Liberal Christianity?

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Its crony capitalism - its not free market capitalism. Unfortunately, when you create a regulatory ..."

Joe

Monday Miscellany, 10/26/26

"With all due respect, I very much doubt any self-proclaimed environmentalist would risk an ecological ..."

reg

Monday Miscellany, 10/26/26

"The attacking of oilers in the Strait sounds just like what environmental terrorists would do. ..."

DakotaLutheran

Monday Miscellany, 10/26/26

"Or both."

Tom Hering

Monday Miscellany, 10/26/26

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category America Apologetics Art baseball Bible Blog Christ Church crime Culture Economics Education Ethics Family Food Football Government History Holidays Holy Week Humor International Islam Language Law Life Issues Literature Media Medicine Movies Music Nature News Personal Philosophy Politics psychology Reformation Religions Sacraments Science sex Social Science Sports technology television terrorism Theology Uncategorized Vocation war

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who is the "friend at midnight" in one of Jesus' parables?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A neighbor seeking bread A fisherman A soldier An angel

Books by This Author Books by Gene Veith

See All Titles »