By Bradley Sylvester

Roger Stone, the former Trump ally and longtime right-wing provocateur, once again made headlines after he was officially banned from Twitter. The ban came about after Stone attacked CNN anchor Don Lemon and contributor Ana Navarro in a series of derogatory, profanity-laced tweets.

While Twitter does not comment on “individual accounts,” Stone’s rant violated its rules and won’t be the last. And he isn’t the first to be banned. Recently there was an outpouring of public outcry when outspoken right-wing figure Milo Yiannopoulos was also banned after a similar series of tweets where he criticized actress Leslie Jones. Yiannopoulos and Stone are among countless others who have been banned or received temporary suspensions for things they have tweeted.
Such incidents have ignited a lively debate as to whether Twitter is right to take such measures against users. On one hand, some believe such measures help to mitigate online bullying. On the other hand, some have claimed such censorship undermines Twitter’s credibility as a nonpartisan company committed to free speech.

I fall in the latter camp.

The unfortunate reality is we cannot have free speech and protect everyone from offensive language. Like every freedom we possess, there are those among us who will take advantage of it. Yet that does not mean we can arbitrarily try to decide who is deserving of those rights and freedoms, and who is not. Twitter has chosen to try to protect people by limiting what others can say. As a for-profit company this is entirely within Twitter’s legal rights. However, there are a number of problems with Twitter’s platform of censorship.

First and foremost, censorship is fundamentally incompatible with free speech and democratic discussion, values which Twitter claims to prescribe to. Again, as a private company it is free to do as it pleases, however, the company cannot censor and ban people for thought and expression disagrees with and simultaneously claim to be pro-free speech. Twitter, as one of the most popular social media platforms in the world, has the capacity to be a global forum of ideas and discussion but has ultimately chosen against this. While we may disagree with what Stone and others have said, we must recognize that it was an expression of opinion that should be allowed.

The second reason why Twitter’s policy of banning and suspending users is ill-advised is because it is seemingly arbitrary. There is evidently no clear-cut criteria to determine what exactly violates its rules. Other well-known Twitter users have tweeted similarly derogatory and curse ridden messages to Stone’s rant and have not been banned or suspended. For example, outspoken liberal commentator Keith Olbermann is notorious for his offensive tweets and has yet to be banned. Others such as leftist activist India Knight have openly called for the assassination of President Trump, and have not been banned.

These examples are troubling for two reasons. One, it suggests that Twitter’s rules about what warrants punishment are vague with little to no criteria guiding them. Is it cursing? Is it threats? What constitutes a threat? What constitutes harassment? These are all questions to which Twitter seemingly has no answer. The second reason why this is so alarming is that it speaks to a politically motivated double standard. Twitter is all too quick to censor right-wing provocateur users such as Stone and Yiannopoulos while at the same time being remarkably complacent in acting against left-wing provocateurs who tweet threats and derogatory messages. Twitter’s political bias has been noticed by many and further undermines democracy. If we are exposed to only one side, to only one opinion, we are unable to make informed decisions. Being exposed to opinions and beliefs we disagree with, even if we find them offensive, is an integral aspect of the democratic process. The fact that Twitter is unable or unwilling to enforce its own rules is only more evidence of why we should be skeptical of its policy of censorship.

The final reason why Twitter’s policy of censorship is a bad idea is because it is ineffective. By forcing users to delete tweets it deems to be harassment, it essentially draws more attention to it. This is true in Stone’s case. The only reason many of us even know about the tweets in question is because his ban prompted media coverage. By banning Stone, Twitter has inadvertently called additional attention to Stone and his opinions. It is also well-known that the deletion of a tweet does not delete the tweet from the internet. So what is the point? Deleted tweets are captured in countless screen grabs as well as in Twitter’s records.

Similarly, there are other tools on Twitter to fight back against online bullying and harassment. It is ultimately up to users to decide who they follow and who they don’t. If users are truly offended by someone’s tweets they can always unfollow them. And if they are being targeted users can always block other users. I find these measures are much more effective in dealing with potential online abuse than granting Twitter the power of judge, jury and executioner over what tweets we see.

We may dislike Roger Stone and his views but we must defend his right to be heard. It is about the greater principles at play. As democratic people who believe in freedom of speech, thought and expression we should all call for Twitter to end its Orwellian policy of censorship as it is ultimately undemocratic, arbitrary and ineffective.

Bradley Sylvester, FCRH ’18, is a political science major from Upton, Massachusetts.