NO: Facebook can ban Trump permanently, but shouldn’t
The question of a permanent ban is about whether Facebook’s “supreme court” should institute one, not whether Facebook has the legal right. I’ll stipulate the legal right and limit myself to what I believe would be a ban’s negative effects on society and on Facebook’s business.
The freedom to speak, hear and explore controversial ideas, even disturbing ones, is critical for a free society. The importance of this liberty extends beyond legal freedom of speech – which was the major concern over two centuries ago when only government could meaningfully stifle the exchange of ideas. Now, private organizations such as Facebook are powerful enough to control others’ speech at critical times, such as during a public controversy or an election. Facebook should recognize its outsize role and view itself not just as a supplier of advertising but as also providing a fabric for society where freedom should abound and do its work.
There are several reasons this freedom is important. Among them are America’s need for a vibrant marketplace of ideas, the impossibility of overlords managing speech in society’s best interests, and its role in developing vigorous and anti-fragile minds. Competition between ideas is important because truth is hard to know, and knowledge is always evolving. Today, scientific research constantly expands what we can know, proving previously accepted truths to be false and demonstrating the limits to humanity’s mental abilities.
Oversight boards are also subject to these limitations, which is one reason freedom is a superior means for determining what people should debate and believe. Additionally, when such power is concentrated in the hands of a few, they often use it for their own benefit – and to the detriment of their rivals. This insight is one reason America embraces democratic principles and is wary of concentrated power.