Citizens 135
framework” to curb Islamic State’s activities online.
37
From 2016, the
censorship of groups associated with Islamic extremism proceeded with
little other than praise across the media when it was reported at all; in
2018, conservatives had begun to complain that their voices were being
censored more generally on the major platforms, but that process of filtering content was well underway with a concerted effort to take down
Jihadist accounts on social media. In 1997, the Supreme Court had afforded online speech the highest level of protection (although it was not
an absolute right, as in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where it was determined
that speech was not protected when it expressly advocated violation of a
law). Following the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), however, it had been determined that providing “material support” to a foreign terrorist organisation constituted a federal crime, thus limiting the
broad protection of free speech.
38
This online offensive against terrorist
organisations was so effective that in 2017, Islamic State militants sought
to create their own social media platforms, and Facebook reported that
it alone had removed some 1.9 million pieces of extremist content in the
first three months of 2018.
39
In practice then, if not in overt principle,
social media platforms had already begun to shift away from the early,
more libertarian rhetoric of being guarantors of free speech: while critics
complained about Infowars as a source of hate speech, it did not operate
in any form as a terrorist organisation (and indeed, although Jones was
a fierce advocate of second amendment gun ownership rights, he consistently opposed military violence). Nonetheless, when the decision came
to question content insofar as it would harm the perception of the major
content platforms, Apple, Facebook, Google, and others were already
used to analysing the material they carried. Facebook’s own volte-face
was particularly sudden. In an interview with Kara Swisher for Recode
magazine in mid-July, Zuckerberg indicated that he would not ban a
site such as Infowars and that, despite being Jewish, he would not even
remove Holocaust deniers from the site, remarking “I don’t believe that
our platform should take that down because I think there are things that
different people get wrong.”
40
Twitter did lock down the account briefly
in mid-August in response to a tweet that it alleged was an example of
harassment, but in somewhat different circumstances, Jack Dorsey continued to defend a decision not to remove Infowars from the site once it
had been banned by Apple and others, arguing that it had not broken
Twitter’s terms of service.
41
While many commentators disagreed with
that stance, it became evident that – as the Infowars app rocketed up
Android and iOS download charts in subsequent days – while Apple had
a written policy with regard to hate speech (which it had used to justify
removing Infowars from its podcasts), it did not have a similar policy
with regard to apps themselves.
42
The impact of the platform ban for Infowars was likely to have
been immediate. In 2013, Seitz-Wald estimated that Jones was making
framework” to curb Islamic State’s activities online.
37
From 2016, the
censorship of groups associated with Islamic extremism proceeded with
little other than praise across the media when it was reported at all; in
2018, conservatives had begun to complain that their voices were being
censored more generally on the major platforms, but that process of filtering content was well underway with a concerted effort to take down
Jihadist accounts on social media. In 1997, the Supreme Court had afforded online speech the highest level of protection (although it was not
an absolute right, as in Brandenburg v. Ohio, where it was determined
that speech was not protected when it expressly advocated violation of a
law). Following the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), however, it had been determined that providing “material support” to a foreign terrorist organisation constituted a federal crime, thus limiting the
broad protection of free speech.
38
This online offensive against terrorist
organisations was so effective that in 2017, Islamic State militants sought
to create their own social media platforms, and Facebook reported that
it alone had removed some 1.9 million pieces of extremist content in the
first three months of 2018.
39
In practice then, if not in overt principle,
social media platforms had already begun to shift away from the early,
more libertarian rhetoric of being guarantors of free speech: while critics
complained about Infowars as a source of hate speech, it did not operate
in any form as a terrorist organisation (and indeed, although Jones was
a fierce advocate of second amendment gun ownership rights, he consistently opposed military violence). Nonetheless, when the decision came
to question content insofar as it would harm the perception of the major
content platforms, Apple, Facebook, Google, and others were already
used to analysing the material they carried. Facebook’s own volte-face
was particularly sudden. In an interview with Kara Swisher for Recode
magazine in mid-July, Zuckerberg indicated that he would not ban a
site such as Infowars and that, despite being Jewish, he would not even
remove Holocaust deniers from the site, remarking “I don’t believe that
our platform should take that down because I think there are things that
different people get wrong.”
40
Twitter did lock down the account briefly
in mid-August in response to a tweet that it alleged was an example of
harassment, but in somewhat different circumstances, Jack Dorsey continued to defend a decision not to remove Infowars from the site once it
had been banned by Apple and others, arguing that it had not broken
Twitter’s terms of service.
41
While many commentators disagreed with
that stance, it became evident that – as the Infowars app rocketed up
Android and iOS download charts in subsequent days – while Apple had
a written policy with regard to hate speech (which it had used to justify
removing Infowars from its podcasts), it did not have a similar policy
with regard to apps themselves.
42
The impact of the platform ban for Infowars was likely to have
been immediate. In 2013, Seitz-Wald estimated that Jones was making