A Double Loss for Property Rights Under Trump

Over the weekend, President Trump incorrectly blasted social media companies for "censorship," threatening them for simply exercising their property rights:

Would Trump condone someone being kicked out of one of his resorts if his suite looked like this? (Image via Pixabay.)

President Trump on Saturday issued a tweet-storm following the removal of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his InfoWars shows from most major social media platforms earlier this month.

"Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices," the president wrote in the first of several tweets. "Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won't let that happen."

The president did not indicate what steps his administration might take to prevent private companies from setting up and enforcing terms of service that have allowed them to discipline or shut down accounts for reported abuses.

Regarding "steps" this fool might take, you can ask his lackey, Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

Here's a hypothetical analogy even a real estate magnate might understand: Consider an occupant of an upscale hotel who -- although he does pay his bills on time -- throws loud parties every night, trashes his suite so thoroughly as to inconvenience his guests with a stench, and might be stockpiling weapons. The proprietor might exercise his property rights by making him leave the hotel. Likewise, the owner of a social media forum is its proprietor: If someone peddling half-baked conspiracy theories is ruining the credibility of that forum or making it less attractive to other customers, that proprietor has an analogous right to boot the conspiracy theorist. Maybe Trump can see that, but it goes further: The owner of a forum doesn't owe anyone a platform for speech he is perfectly free to deliver somewhere else any more than the hotelier owes anyone shelter. In fact, neither owner need offer reasons everyone finds correct, or any explanation at all. If someone who owns a forum discriminates against conservatives, whites, blacks, or even people named Gus, that is his right, as the owner of that forum.

It would be bad enough if Trump were merely grandstanding, pretending to support freedom of speech by defending the rights of the obnoxious, but he isn't even doing that. Instead, Trump is assaulting property rights in the name of fighting "discrimination" -- and at what is actually a ripe time to defend them, and to draw a much-needed distinction: between freedom of speech (which all men have and it is the President's job to defend) and having a forum and an audience (which all men have the right to pursue, by trading with consenting adults).

-- CAV