Tweeting "Fire"

In the aftermath of yesterday’s invasion on the capitol, incited by the inciter-in-chief, the loathsome Laura Ingram of Fox tweeted in response to social media companies shuttering  Trump’s messaging privileges, “Now we’re seeing who the real wanna-be tyrants are.  As usual, the left does not wish to debate actual issues. They only wish to silence their opposition or demonize them into submission. Terrible strategy. Not to mention un-American.” 

Jonathan Greenblatt, director of the Anti-Defamation League, speaking for the otherside told the New York Times,  “Freedom of expression is not the freedom to incite violence. That is not protected speech.”

In For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard makes the point that “incitement to riot” is only a crime “if we deny every man’s freedom of will and of choice, and assume that if A tells B and C: “You and him go ahead and riot!” that somehow B and C are then helplessly determined to proceed and commit the wrongful act.”

B, C, the rest of the alphabet and then some, assaulted the White House and thus are culpable. Meanwhile A, Mr. Trump, while he urged his adoring alphabet to join him in walking to the capitol, instead retired to the oval office to watch the revolution on TV. Thus, Rothbard would say A’s actions might have been “immoral or unfortunate” to advocate a riot but he is not legally responsible.  

At the same, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and social media company XYZ own the platforms that Trump communicates from and these firms have every right to accept or reject users as they see fit. Even in the case of the person who yells “fire” in a crowded theatre, that person “has no right to do so because he is aggressing against the contractual property rights of the theater owner and of the patrons of the performance,” Rothbard wrote.  

Social media companies are protecting their property and other users. There is nothing un-American about that and these companies can and should stop the president from yelling “fire” via social media.