By: Erin Howlin
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Thomas Jefferson uttered these words when America was newly freed and a democracy was just being born, however, these words remain true today. In the spring of 2022, Elon Musk offered Twitter $44 billion dollars for the app, noting that it has “tremendous potential.” Shortly after Musk dangled this carrot before Twitter, his plans to simply buy Twitter changed. Elon Musk wanted to make Twitter a sensor-free platform positioned against censorship that “goes beyond the law.” As a company, Twitter is not required to strictly follow the language of the First Amendment, which allows freedom of speech, since the First Amendment only applies to state and federal governments. This has caused issues between Musk and Twitter, and more importantly has brought to surface the constitutional issues regarding social media platforms.
Twitter was first founded in 2006 by Evan Williams, Biz Stone, and Noah Glass. The platform became infamous for the short, 280 character paragraphs called tweets. With Twitter, the user can type a message or “tweet,” and hit send, broadcasting it to other Twitter users. Tweeters can also search words and hashtags and view results to see what millions of other people are saying about that topic. Since 2006, Twitter has been a popular and widely accepted social media platform and favorable to Americans due to its short messages and easy use. Celebrities, politicians, artists, authors, and Americans everywhere use Twitter to express themselves, share photos and videos, and get their message across in just a few short sentences.
America is more divided than ever and social media platforms like Twitter are at the tips of our fingers; users turn to the app to voice their opinions and hear others’ views. In more recent years, this has become an issue across the app. Alex Berenson, an American author, was banned from Twitter for a year for allegedly spreading COVID-19 misinformation. In his tweets, he expressed his disapproval of the COVID-19 vaccines and mandates. Twitter claimed that Berenson’s tweets violated their COVID-19 misinformation rules, ultimately causing the author to be removed from the platform. In early August of this year, Berenson settled his lawsuit against Twitter and his account was restored. The lawsuit boiled down to constitutional issues: Berenson claimed that his freedom of speech rights guaranteed in the First Amendment were violated and Twitter rebutted, claiming the company did not have to strictly follow the language of the First Amendment. Berenson is one of many examples of the constitutional issues behind Twitter’s policies.
Elon Musk, founder, CEO and Chief Engineer at SpaceX, and CEO of Tesla, brought major attention to Twitter and these constitutional concerns. Earlier this year, Musk started hinting to Twitter and the public that he had some big things coming for the app. He reached out to Jack Dorsey, Twitter cofounder and former CEO, to discuss the potential Twitter has and the direction he wants to bring the platform. He then became Twitter’s biggest shareholder, investing more than a 9% stake in the company. Musk offered to buy Twitter for $44 billion and mentioned wanting to change some of Twitter’s speech regulations. Musk then confirmed that the deal cannot move forward without these changes in place. Twitter then filed suit against Elon Musk, claiming that he needs to complete the deal as promised.
The completion of the deal would be more than just another feather in Elon’s cap. It would mean re-writing the legal landscape of the app. It would mean people like Berenson would be able to voice their opinions and beliefs without confiscation of their privileges. The battle of billionaires here is more than business deals and trades, but putting the First Amendment under the microscope and weighing the consequences of liberty for all Tweeters.
Most social media platforms, including Twitter, adopt content rules stricter than the First Amendment. Having stricter provisions ensures users that hate speech, violent and dehumanizing speech, and harmful stereotypes stay off the web. Musk believes that these limitations completely contradict the First Amendment, taking away the freedom of speech from users. Although Twitter is a public company that is not required to follow the First Amendment, concerns are raised on whether Twitter is running by its own rules. The category of speech Twitter’s content rules are designed to protect is leading users to question how free their freedoms are. Users like Berenson are being banned for stating their opinions on a popular topic, which does not involve hate speech or dehumanizing speech. Users are afraid that if their freedoms are being restricted, more lawsuits with Twitter could arise.
If Musk seals the deal with Twitter, his image and the direction he wants to take the app is a double-edged sword. Allowing all legal speech would open the floodgates to hate speech, dehumanizing speech and propaganda. Simultaneously, opinions and ideas can be shared freely, without concern that accounts would be deleted. On the contrary, if Musk pulls away from the deal, the content rules would remain the same and users would realize their rights are being infringed upon. Many are counting on Musk to get Twitter in his hands, take it private, and allow more truth in tweets without shadow-banning.
Student Bio: Erin Howlin is a second-year student at Suffolk University Law School. She is a staff writer on the Journal of High Technology Law. She is also the Treasurer and Vice Justice of Phi Alpha Delta and Secretary of the Real Estate and Trusts and Estates Association. Erin graduated magna cum laude from Roger Williams University (Bristol, RI), receiving a Bachelor of Science Degree in Legal Studies and Political Science.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
