This past week saw most of the major social media outlets completely ban the President of the United States from being able to post or say anything on them. 

Yes, you’re reading that right.  

This comes on the heels of Donald Trump’s incendiary words at a rally in front of his supporters in Washington, D.C., that led to at least some of them storming the U.S. Capitol, which resulted in several deaths. 

Immediately the biggest Trump supporters started screaming about his freedom of speech rights being violated, and the issue became a big topic of discussion nationwide. 

As alien as it may seem that the president would be banned from saying a word anywhere in the nation he is president of, as shocking as it might sound I actually have no problem with what Facebook, Twitter, and all of the rest of them did. 

Before you show up at my house with torches and pitchforks, let me explain.

The fact of the matter is in our world today social media has a tremendous influence on people. There’s just no way around that. And I would bet most of us would agree that in far too many cases it has too much of an influence on people who simply refuse to think for themselves.

We’ve talked about this many time on these pages. People today are disproportionally influenced by sources of ‘information’ that are too often based on no foundation of fact. Because of the nature of social media, any idiot can say anything with absolutely no accountability, and before you know it what was said is spread everywhere with hardly anyone stopping to actually check to see if it is in fact truthful. 

We’ve all seen it 1,000 times — but it keeps happening over and over and over again. 

We live in an age where too many people just prefer being told what to think (just as long as it comes in the form of a tweet or Wikipedia page…you know, ain’t nobody got time for anything else). And, after they are told what to think, then they surround themselves with voices saying and agreeing with the same things, even providing other ‘internet sources’ to validate their views (because if it’s on the internet it has to be true, right?). 

In other words, someone says something completely inaccurate and then it resonates endlessly in an echo chamber, repeating only words those involved want to hear — objectivity and truth be damned. 

Those kinds of words fanned the flames that eventually blew up last week. Given that fact, and the fact that Trump could say the sky was chartreuse and a significant percentage of America would swear he was right, and the fact that given his social media performance over the last 48 months he’s apt to say pretty much anything, I have no issue with what the social media platforms did. 

Those social media platforms are, after all, businesses and private entities. They are not government representatives any more than Amazon is, so it is well within their purview to act as they see fit. 

But my issue is simple: divisive and hate-filled speech is divisive and hate-filled speech. I completely agree that in this day and age when people are so stinking gullible and easily influenced by manipulators and liars, it has no place being where it can lead the masses even up to actual violence. I would hope every single one of us would agree with that sentiment. 

So if we are going to censor one then we better be targeting all, or else the entire effort begins to smell of agenda. Knowing that Louis Farrakhan and the Iranian ayatollah still have active pages on all of the platforms Trump has been banned should be of concern to anyone who agrees with the previous paragraph. And don’t even try with a “well, that’s different” or “they haven’t incited violence” because if you actually believe that, then you might want to check your own agenda at the door.

If the line in the sand is censoring based on divisive and hate/violent rhetoric then so be it, let that be the line in the sand across the board. It’s really very simple, and personally, again, with people being so gullible and easily influenced today by these outlets and those utilizing them for their own nefarious purposes I have no issue with doing so whatsoever.

We should all support trying to keep people from crossing a line and inciting harm and violence, but when some voices are squelched while others are allowed (many others in actuality) with no repercussions it becomes difficult to distinguish if the motivation is truly protecting people or merely taking certain viewpoints out of the discussion.

The concept of free speech is predicated on allowing someone far more than enough rope to hang themselves in the court of public opinion should they choose to use it. The problem today is that too many on both extremes of the left and right wings cannot differentiate whether the rope is being looped around their own necks.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences, be you the president or anyone else saying things that could cause harm to people. I would hope we all would have no problem with that. 

However, with that said, if we’re going to hold one accountable for such then we better be applying the same standards to all, lest we risk letting our hypocrisy overshadow the honor of our intent.