No, a Twitter ban does not infringe Trump’s freedom of speech

In a response typical of those decrying Donald Trump’s Twitter ban, his namesake son tweeted: “Free speech is dead and controlled by leftist overlords.” Nothing performative about that reaction, eh?

The fact that the current president’s message is being “controlled” by anyone other than himself is laughable. There are other official White House and presidential Twitter feeds to get policy points out, plus a communications team. If Trump convened a press conference, you would have the White House press pack in attendance – and it would be considered by all the major networks for national broadcast.

Trump is one of the most powerful people in the world, at least for the next 10 days; if he wants something put out there, millions will be able to see or hear it. And will that influence instantly disappear once he leaves the Oval Office? Of course not, however much some may wish it would. There is a well-trodden path for former presidents towards book deals, national interviews and coverage of their next steps.

Creating his own communication platform has been discussed multiple times by Trump, but therein lies the rub. The first amendment of the US constitution doesn’t give anyone the right to a particular platform or audience – while it also gives private companies, such as Twitter and Facebook, the right to choose what they want to be seen and how their platform can be used. If Trump set up a similar enterprise, he would have the same rights.

There is no legal responsibility for any privately-owned platform to host the president’s views, although there is obviously a broader moral consideration in letting voters (wherever they are in the world)  hear/see the words of their elected official as well as a moral obligation in not spreading words that could incite violence.

That is the stance that Twitter (and Facebook et al) have taken – and, in my view, it is difficult to hear the words of Trump and those around him and then see what happened at the US Capitol, without coming to a similar conclusion.

That is not to say there isn’t a bigger conversation to be had about the influence these massive social media platforms have. How they have been built up to the point where they are becoming news providers for many people around the world. The issue over the messages sent by Trump may touch on that, but it should not be allowed to cloud what is a much more important conversation.

Fairness is one of the considerations, now Twitter and others have set this benchmark, particularly as the company said it had to draw a line in the sand over Trump’s messages. Twitter has clearly set out why it believes Trump has breached guidelines to the point where this action needed to be taken, but other politicians and world leaders also have posted incendiary tweets. And there is no doubt this opens to the door to more discussion.

However, the spread of misinformation is far, far bigger than the president – and let’s not feed Trump’s ego by mixing that up. He and his supporters may see himself as a free-speech martyr, but in truth he is no such thing. Has there been any problem in hearing from Trump since the ban? No.

His views on free speech and social media matter are also a clear matter of record going back years. Voters will not be left wondering what the president thinks as he tries to pivot away from events at the Capitol and towards the safer ground of galvanising his base around this.

Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, of the Senate intelligence committee tweeted this in the wake of Trump’s ban: “It’s important to remember, this is much bigger than one person... It’s about an entire ecosystem that allows misinformation and hate to spread and fester unchecked.”

That is what we need to remember as Trump – who knows his best asset is to be seen as an outsider – continues to whine.