Twitter’s decision to ban Kanye West raises interesting issues about freedom of speech. Since both Twitter and West are private citizens, the First Amendment is not directly implicated, but its
Twitter’s decision to ban Kanye West raises interesting issues about freedom of speech. Since both Twitter and West are private citizens, the First Amendment is not directly implicated, but its spirit cannot be ignored.
Let’s begin with an indisputable fact: Ye (the former Kanye West) is a virulent antisemite who has called for « death con3 » against the Jewish people. He has made other antisemitic statements as well.
The image that got him banned juxtaposes the star of David, a symbol of Judaism for millennia, with the Nazi swastika, the symbol of Hitler’s murder of 6 million Jews. West claims that this juxtaposition is a sign of love. No, it is a sign of hate.
But hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. It also seems to be permitted by Elon Musk’s new anti-censorship policies at Twitter. These policies do not allow censorship on the basis of offensiveness or disagreement, but they do ban users from inciting violence.
So, the question is whether or not West is inciting violence in violation of Twitter standards. I do not believe he is. Incitement has a specific meaning. It generally requires oral communication urging imminent violence. It rarely covers the written word, and I know of no case where it covers symbols such as the swastika imposed on the Jewish star.
So, if Twitter had been the government, it would be unconstitutional to prohibit the swastika and Jewish star symbol, despicable and hateful as that is. But because Twitter is not the government it has considerable leeway in deciding who shall have access to its platform.
