By the time you read this, it will have been more than a month since Twitter took action in what could be a fatal turning point in this social-media giant’s life. On July 19, in the middle of the hot, sweaty media mess that was the Republican National Convention, Twitter took action against the outspoken conservative journalist Milo Yiannopoulos. What resulted was yet another bloody clash of views on free speech along party lines.
If you don’t know Yiannopoulos, then you probably don’t frequent the peculiar corners of the internet that he is the self-proclaimed ruler of. I’m talking about quite an eclectic army: young political conservatives, internet trolls, gamers, bloggers, hardcore libertarians and numerous other marginalized individuals. Over the past year, Yiannopoulos took the previously humdrum conservative scene by storm by adding just the right amount of “flare” and danger. With his controversial columns on breitbart.com and college-speaking engagements that often result in protests and viral videos of ensuing madness, Milo has embraced being the anti-politically-correct voice of the right.
Every voice needs an outlet, and Milo’s was certainly Twitter. As a former follower of Milo, I can say one quickly grows accustomed to his dubious online behavior. Seeing someone else say things that most others shy away from adds some zest to one's timeline, and I began to be entertained by Milo’s zeal regarding his First Amendment rights.
That was, until he was silenced. He was not corrected or momentarily censored. Silenced. He had his entire voice removed.
You cannot say he wasn’t warned, as he often pointed out — and even flaunted — Twitter’s complaints and warnings about his online behavior. But Milo was always fully aware of Twitter’s rules and community guidelines, as well as his inherent rights as a citizen. So what was the straw that broke the camel’s back?
“Ghostbusters.” Well, kind of.
Milo wrote a ferociously negative review of the Ghostbusters remake, taking aim at the actresses’ performances in the film, including Saturday Night Live cast member Leslie Jones. After a few back-and-forth tweets with Milo, Jones found herself having to fend off hordes of barbaric, salivating trolls who came equipped with racist, sexist and downright mean tweets. It wasn’t long before Jones was fed up with the abuse — and rightfully so.
But Twitter’s responsive actions were the fateful match that sparked the flame: Twitter officially banned Milo’s account.
Despite the fact that Milo never told anyone to verbally abuse Jones, he was treated and targeted as the ringleader of the trolls who heaved abusive comments her way. He took the ultimate punishment for the asinine behavior of others. In a matter of minutes, the news spread and #FreeMilo began trending worldwide.
The issue of free speech should be simple, but this whole situation gets blurry when you realize Twitter is its own company with its own policies in place, policies that each user must agree to abide by before making an account. If a Twitter user’s speech threatens another and violates the site’s community guidelines, then Twitter can act. The problem is that Milo claims to have never actually broken said guidelines. Yes, Milo can be a jerk, but he has every right to do so.
There’s nothing wrong with Twitter taking action to protect one of their users. The problem lies in the fact that they punished an innocent user based on the words of others. Some may view this as Twitter targeting outspoken conservatives, but I believe the true injustice is that Twitter decided to solve this issue and send a message not through discussion or regulation, but by removing the voice of a user altogether.
And more importantly, does this silencing stop at Milo? What about when more issues like this occur again? All it takes is justifying one to justify another. If such silencing continues, can Twitter be counted on as a home for free speech? It appears not.
Andrew Hall is a UF business administration junior. His column appears on Fridays.
