Skip to main content
Menu

Main navigation

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact
    LOADING...
  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit
    LOADING...
  • Publications
    • Studies
    • Commentary
    • Books
    • Reviews and Journals
    • Public Filings
    LOADING...
  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving
    • Meet the Development Team

Issues

  • Constitution and Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Criminal Justice
    • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Economics
    • Banking and Finance
    • Monetary Policy
    • Regulation
    • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Politics and Society
    • Education
    • Government and Politics
    • Health Care
    • Poverty and Social Welfare
    • Technology and Privacy
  • International
    • Defense and Foreign Policy
    • Global Freedom
    • Immigration
    • Trade Policy
Live Now

Cato at Liberty


  • Blog Home
  • RSS

Email Signup

Sign up to have blog posts delivered straight to your inbox!

Topics
  • Banking and Finance
  • Constitutional Law
  • Criminal Justice
  • Defense and Foreign Policy
  • Education
  • Free Speech and Civil Liberties
  • Global Freedom
  • Government and Politics
  • Health Care
  • Immigration
  • Monetary Policy
  • Poverty and Social Welfare
  • Regulation
  • Tax and Budget Policy
  • Technology and Privacy
  • Trade Policy
Archives
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • Show More
March 19, 2021 2:48PM

Oversight Board Comment on Facebook’s Suspension of Donald Trump

By Will Duffield

SHARE

I submitted the following public comment to the Oversight Board regarding their review of Facebook’s decision to indefinitely suspend President Donald Trump.

2021-001-FB-FBR Public Comment

Will Duffield, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute

This public comment addresses deficiencies in Facebook’s initial justification for its suspension of President Trump and examines how the current broad application of the newsworthiness principle to politicians undermines the legitimacy of Facebook’s Community Standards.

Facebook had ample justification to suspend President Trump after the Capitol riot under its prohibition on the incitement of violence. Rioters said their actions were justified by claims that the election results were illegitimate, the product of an elite conspiracy to deny President Trump a second term. President Trump continued to endorse claims of a stolen election even while condemning the day’s violence. Given the demonstrated capacity of these claims to inspire violence (indeed, how else should one respond to the usurpation of democracy), Trump’s persistence in echoing them in his capacity as president would have justified suspending him under policies against speech that incites violence.

While Facebook’s incitement policy is narrowly tailored to calls for violence, when Facebook expanded its election integrity measures in the weeks after the riot, it did so to “stop misinformation and content that could incite further violence.” While new prohibitions on “stop the steal” content were justified by Facebook’s policy against Coordinated Harm, these restrictions limited a particular sort of claim that Biden’s election was illegitimate, on the grounds that it could incite further violence. A similar judgement about the likely effects of President Trump’s stolen election claims would therefore seem best justified by Facebook’s prohibition on the incitement of violence.

Instead, Facebook relied on its Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy to justify Trump’s indefinite suspension. While the Capitol Riot fits within Facebook’s definition of a violating event, the president’s posts did not explicitly praise the riot or rioters. Crucially, any ongoing risk associated with Trump’s Facebook account was rooted in his claim that his loss in the 2020 election was illegitimate. It was this claim, not alleged praise or support of the widely condemned riot, that risked inciting further attempts to prevent President-elect Biden from taking office.

Does this mean Facebook should maintain Trump’s suspension, or make it permanent, now that he has left office? Trump’s status as president mattered. The president’s speech carries unique authority, and public statements may be made in concert with official orders. After January 6th, while Donald Trump still occupied the Oval Office, many feared he would use social media to organize an extralegal attempt to remain president. Now that he has left office, and Joe Biden is president, this eventuality has been foreclosed. While Donald Trump still maintains a prominent position in Republican politics and the minds of his voters, he lacks the ability to credibly contest the presidency.

Thus, while exigency and Facebook’s prohibition on speech that incites violence may have justified the initial ban, its maintenance would be punitive rather than preventative. Given that Facebook did not previously bar claims of a rigged or stolen election as incitement, it would seem procedurally deficient to render Trump’s current suspension permanent. This is not to say that Donald Trump has not broken Facebook’s rules. He has, repeatedly. However, Facebook has long tolerated his violations under its newsworthiness policy.

Since 2016, Facebook has allowed content it subjectively deems newsworthy to remain on the platform, even if it would otherwise violate Facebook’s rules. There are instances in which this policy makes a great deal of sense. Images such as “Napalm Girl,” a photo of a nude, burned child from the Vietnam war, are moving illustrations of the horrors of war precisely because of their disturbing content. However, when this policy is applied to the violative speech of public figures or elected officials, it amounts to making some users more equal than others. In a 2019 Newsroom post, Facebook VP of Global Affairs Nick Clegg writes, “we generally allow [politicians’ speech] on the platform even when it would otherwise breach our normal content rules.” If a speaker’s status as a government official or celebrity makes their every utterance newsworthy, the newsworthiness exception serves as a formalization of Donald Trump’s claim that “when you’re a star, they let you do it.” It is important that public access to information not become a fig leaf for power.

Indeed, the fact that this privilege has been balanced against the risk of incitement provides one more reason to treat Facebook’s initial suspension of President Trump as an attempt to prevent the incitement of further violence. In the 2019 post, Clegg states that “content that has the potential to incite violence, for example, may pose a safety risk that outweighs the public interest value.”

However, this two-tiered system creates problems not easily ameliorated by sudden suspensions down the line, particularly when these problems stem from deeply held beliefs cultivated over months or years. Allowing some subset of Facebook users to systemically ignore Facebook’s rules undermines the legitimacy of the rules. If the violation of Facebook’s rules by private users with small followings may lead to harm, breaches by public figures with large followings will likely lead to greater harm. Subjectively violable rules are incredibly hard to justify.

Furthermore, while there is a public interest in hearing what our elected representatives have to say, that interest does not extend to affording politicians greater speech rights than others vis a vis Facebook’s rules. The Senate has sanctioned “disorderly language” in debates since America’s founding. So long as the rules are applied fairly, limiting the sort of language that politicians may employ on Facebook does no harm to the public interest. Unfortunately, the current subjectively applied newsworthiness exception makes it impossible to establish that any set of rules are being uniformly applied to politicians or heads of state. A content-based, rather than speaker-based, model of newsworthiness would improve this situation. A more explicit rubric for making newsworthiness determinations would improve it further.

Finally, Facebook, and the Oversight Board, must avoid adopting the mistaken belief that the world can or should be controlled through content moderation. While the intention behind these efforts is noble, in attempting to ameliorate state failures to physically secure the capitol, moderators adopted duties that requiring traditionally unacceptable tradeoffs between safety and voice. While the state cannot respond to budding insurrection by prohibiting provocative speech, mass gatherings, travel, hotel bookings, and the advertising of arms, moderators across a host of major social media platforms did so.

It is one thing to attempt to prevent the misuse of a social media platform. It is another to attempt to foreclose real-world harms through denial of access to a social media platform. To the extent that platforms, or their overseers, attempt to do so, they will adopt unrealistic duties that mask unpleasant tradeoffs.

Related Tags
Internet Governance and Regulation

Stay Connected to Cato

Sign up for the newsletter to receive periodic updates on Cato research, events, and publications.

View All Newsletters

1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
202-842-0200
Contact Us
Privacy

Footer 1

  • About
    • Annual Reports
    • Leadership
    • Jobs
    • Student Programs
    • Media Information
    • Store
    • Contact
  • Podcasts

Footer 2

  • Experts
    • Policy Scholars
    • Adjunct Scholars
    • Fellows
  • Events
    • Upcoming
    • Past
    • Event FAQs
    • Sphere Summit

Footer 3

  • Publications
    • Books
    • Cato Journal
    • Regulation
    • Cato Policy Report
    • Cato Supreme Court Review
    • Cato’s Letter
    • Human Freedom Index
    • Economic Freedom of the World
    • Cato Handbook for Policymakers

Footer 4

  • Blog
  • Donate
    • Sponsorship Benefits
    • Ways to Give
    • Planned Giving
Also from Cato Institute:
Libertarianism.org
|
Humanprogress.org
|
Downsizinggovernment.org