Yikes! They Put a KKK Flier on My Grocery Corkboard! Can I Remove It?
Does freedom of speech protect those who poison the well?
Suppose I have a grocery store with a traditional corkboard in the front for people to post neighborhood messages. And suppose someone posts KKK fliers there. Also, suppose the store is in a Black neighborhood. Do I have a right to take those fliers down? That’s the scenario a conservative neighbor cooked up.
It’s a lot like what happened in Vermont, Montana, New York, Florida, and other places in the USA. Only in this scenario, the fliers are posted on a grocery corkboard — an early and low-tech form of social media — rather than stuck on people’s doors.
Does freedom of speech protect those who poison the well?
Some say that social media sites are like the traditional corkboards as in groceries, hardware stores, etc. A store owner, the reasoning goes, owns the store and the board but does not own the content posted there. So if someone posts a KKK flier, it would have to stay up.
They say don’t feed the trolls but I couldn’t resist. They also say that the right to swing your fist ends where your neighbor’s nose begins. So … how close to your neighbor’s nose can you — or should you — swing? That’s the big question. So I hit reply and we got into it.
She said that the content on social media sites remain the property of its original writers, and removing offending posts amounts to destroying other people’s private intellectual property and infringing on their First Amendment rights. She gave the example that if someone puts a KKK flier on a grocery bulletin board in a Black neighborhood then the owner of that grocery should not remove the flier because it remains the property of the person who put it up. Furthermore, the owner has no duty to remove the flier in the interest of public safety or decency — because people should understand that the owner is not responsible for the content that’s posted on their board.
Should, should, should … she was about to should herself!
What?!?! Doesn’t the store owner have an interest in their customer’s comfort and safety? Or at least in common decency? And it’s their store and their corkboard, for gosh sakes!
Should freedom of speech protect those who poison the well?
No one should take offense, she replied. People should respect the free speech and private property rights of the person who posted the offending flier — and it could be their free speech and property rights on the line next time around! (There she goes stinking up the place, should-ing herself again, this part being even more cringeworthy. Don’t Black people and other marginalized folks see their free speech and property rights on the line All. The. Time. anyhow?)
On the other hand, if the store owner removes the flier then this amounts to taking responsibility and ownership for anything and everything that appears on their board. Then they can then be sued — or worse. It is the same way, she said, with social media. That’s the gist, as it’s being argued in many lawsuits even as we speak.
She kept referring to Section 230 so I looked it up. It’s not easy reading — it’s in lawyer-speak — but it’s only 3 pages long and I’m fortunate to be able to read on that level. So I read it over a few times till it made sense.
I came across clause 230c, which seems to give owners of media space the right to remove offensive posts under the “Good Samaritan” principle. She replied that clause 230c is under debate and will probably be removed because who has a right to say what is offensive — as long as no actual laws are being broken? Free speech and the property rights of the original owner of the content overrides someone’s opinion of what is offensive.
Now I’m thinking — Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. When rights come into conflict, consider their order. Does your free-speech right override your Black neighbors’ rights to Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness? When you say All Lives Matter and say that includes Black lives — do you really mean that, when you also think it’s fine to put KKK fliers all over the place because The First Amendment?
(Here and in the next few paragraphs, “you” does not refer to most readers here. “You” refers to my conservative neighbor who got me thinking about all this, and to those in her camp.)
My neighbor is a devout Christian (I’m more of a Red Letter-ist) so I took to Scripture for backup. It’s right here in 1 Corinthians 10:23:
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
It may be lawful to post a KKK flier on a grocery bulletin board, but it is not expedient, it does not edify. Likewise, violating TOS on social media: you may feel that under Section 230 social media sites have no right to moderate and set TOS because free speech and intellectual property rights— but does this edify?
Sure, you’d feel good posting your Bible tracts and your screeds praising TFG and damming Brandon and knowing that no one could do a thing about it. But would it be worth it having to fight your way thru Satanic tracts, left-wing rants, and maybe some softcore porn for good measure — just to find out where the garage sales are, or who is a good plumber? And why would anyone want to host a social media site if they knew that they’d have no recourse when the trolls come in to roost?
Yes, you say? You‘re fine with bushwhacking thru thickets of toxic trolls because they’re singing the sound of freedom … or maybe you think your First Amendment rights come first in all situations, or that rights cannot be placed in order?
This is where higher principles come in handy. Principles like The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don’t like that? Aren’t you (again, you = my conservative neighbor and those she speaks for) the one saying the USA is, or should be, a Christian nation?
Do unto others … If you had a grocery store in a Black neighborhood — or anywhere else for that matter — would you want people posting KKK dreck there? Even if you know your customers would despise you and go elsewhere? Do you really think they would smile and agree that you are not responsible for the offensive material on your board in your store because of intellectual property and free speech?
What if you were Black — and KKK fliers appeared on the board at your neighborhood grocery? What if you were Black and owned the store? Would your respect for the racist’s free speech and intellectual property override your respect and safety concerns for yourself and your community?
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Instead, why not find or create sites where your speech is the norm? Isn’t that how the free market is supposed to work? That way no one is invading anyone else’s space or destroying anyone else’s intellectual property, because we are all respectful of each other’s boundaries even though we disagree on just about everything else. As I see it, that’s the only way a pluralistic society — as in the USA — can survive.
Unfortunately, some folks don’t want a pluralistic society. They want a theocracy, and they want their religion in charge. The Bible Tells Them So. And they vote. And buy politicians.
Some folks seem to think they have a right to do or say whatever they want wherever and whenever they want, even in other people’s spaces, no matter what the owner or denizens of that space want. (Sounds about white to me.) This may be legal but it’s not ethical because it violates the Golden Rule.
Fortunately, laws which condone unethical behavior are often struck down in the long run. That’s why child marriage is no longer legal in the USA. Likewise slavery — except in prisons, and we’re working on that. Why choose to be on the wrong side of history?
One thing that puzzles me about conservative Christians is their refusal to apply the basic principles of their Founder — such as the Golden Rule — in making sense of current conundrums. If any conservative Christian reading this can explain why your camp does this, I’m interested in hearing what you have to say. Very interested.
In fact, I think this trait is a big reason why so many people these days don’t like or trust Christianity. Not such good optics if you’re supposed to be making disciples of all nations, hmmm?
Readers — what do you think?
