Twitter Banning The Federalist Would Be a Favor

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt." -- Unknown

***

The Federalist is calling this perfectly legal exercise of Twitter's property rights "censorship," which is factually incorrect since Twitter is not part of our government. Note the Twitter sharing icon at the left. (This 12-2-21 screen capture is by the author, who believes its use to be appropriate under American copyright law.)

This morning, my news feed churned up a piece at the Federalist, whose title complains, "Twitter Implements New Rule So It Can Selectively Ban Memes, Mockery of Democrats."

That figures, I thought.

Soon after, I had the exact same thought again, but about The Federalist, a publication I once respected.

This happened when, upon seeing the story mislabeled "Censorship" in red, I took a look and saw that this publication has mislabeled numerous similar stories dating at least back to 2018 as censorship.

I am no fan of the often blatant left-wing bias of the major social media companies, but what they are doing is not censorship. Let's review the meaning of that term:

"Censorship" is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one's own antagonists. -- Ayn Rand ("Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 98) [bold added]

Just as anyone hosting a Thanksgiving dinner has the right to eject a guest -- justly or not -- from his own home, so do the owners of a platform to refuse service to anyone they please. The reason for someone doing so is irrelevant to the question of whether he has the right to do so. Conversely, the fact that someone has the right to do something does not exempt him from moral judgement.

Archie Bunker turned me away because he's a bigot is morally wrong, but the fact remains that it's his house. And so it is with Twitter.

Having made those points clear, I must add that I am always puzzled when left-wingers do whatever they can to silence political opponents. Are they not so sure that they're right and might lose an argument? Does hearing a dissenting opinion put them so much into an emotional fetal position that they feel they must avoid encountering one at all costs? Are they afraid they'll look bad by comparison?

I don't know why leftists are so apparently frightened of dissent or falsehood, but I think the Archie Bunkers of the world deserve one cheer: At least they're letting us know they're asses.

I say, Let them speak up so we can be warned!

(And, let me add, before fans of such policies start slapping themselves on the backs for being so much more broad-minded than Archie Bunker: Actions speak louder than words: Not only are people who spew nonsense telling us about themselves, so too are the ones who selectively shut up only certain brands of nonsense while pretending to be neutral. In my mind, neither Twitter nor The Federalist look good. So, in case you were wondering to whom I refer with that old cultural reference, it's both media outlets.)

In that vein, I hope Twitter doesn't squelch the Federalist. The world needs to see them demonstrate that they are friends to neither freedom of speech nor property rights. In this way, those of us who are will know not to rely on those who are incompetent or treasonous for support. Likewise, we could use a more even-handed Twitter, or at least a different outlet that is even-handed, and out-competes it.

-- CAV