The Facebook oversight board delegated to decide on former President Donald Trump’s use of the platform extended the ban on Trump another six months with the stipulation that Facebook must decide itself at that time whether to make it permanent. The board layered its point about responsibility by criticizing the company’s suspending Trump indefinitely rather than making a permanent decision. (The New York Times, May 6, 2021, by Kevin Roose)
Eric Goldman in Technology & Marketing Law Blog, May 5, 2021, gives details of the board’s findings and thinks Facebook took a hit even though the board backed the decision to ban Trump. He thinks Facebook should think more about remedies as the board instructed.
Fox News commentator Jonathan Turley, May 4, 2021, argues that in censoring Trump and others, Facebook has assumed the role of censor, Writes Turley, “The rise of the corporate censor has challenged long-standing assumptions of the free speech community. Our Constitution and much of free speech writings are focused on the classic model of government censorship and state media. What we have seen in the last few years is that corporations have far greater ability to curtail speech and that you can have a type of state media without the state.”
Law Professor Eugene Volokh, Reason, May 5, 2021, writes that at the heart of issue is the question, what rules should govern discourse on Facebook, a central medium in political exchange, especially during elections? Volokh posits three answers: 1. American free speech principles, coupled with the judgment of American speakers and American listeners. 2. An immensely rich and powerful corporation, and its immensely rich and powerful owners and managers. 3. International law principles, as made and enforced by an international groups of decision makers (on which Americans are represented but understandably not in control. Volokh favors option 1. to avoid any degree of suppression of free speech.