DeSantis Against Facebook

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis asked the Florida Secretary of State to investigate Facebook for election interference. The alleged offense, is applying a different system of moderation to 5.8 million public figures, primarily “government officials”, including incumbent politicians. This is to be investigated for being unfair, by being perhaps less permissive of speech by those running against the incumbents.

Never mind, a comparable system has existed in Florida since at least 1987. That is when the Florida Third District Court of Appeals decreed that anyone can publish any ridiculous defamation with immunity, as long as the statement is based on something stated by an incumbent government official. (Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. 510 So. 2d 972)

So suppose in a Florida county that is 70% Republican, the Sheriff inaccurately alleges that a Democrat running for office is a rapist. Of course the Sheriff is immune in all courts, and will be rewarded not punished by his majority of voters for calling a member of the minority faction a criminal. But now any random person on the Internet, can also say that Democrat is a rapist, because an incumbent government official said it first. But an average person on the street who publishes that someone is a rapist, will not enjoy the same level of immunity.

The Founders of our country knew life was unfair, and had no hope to create fair speech through the power of government. All they sought to do was stop government meddling in and preventing speech. Because our Founders knew government was the most dangerous actor of all. DeSantis said the lack of fair speech on Facebook is “an affront to the basic principles of our republic.” But it is in fact what DeSantis is doing – using the power of government to shape and control speech for his own benefit – which is an affront to the basic principles of our republic.

Over recent decades, Republican idealists had been against big-government laws abridging political speech such as the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. We were shocked that the Supreme Court allowed caps on campaign contributions, and allowed the regulation of individuals advocating during political campaigns. Government officials wanted to make Rush Limbaugh put a Democrat on his show for half the time, or somehow force people to listen to an equal amount of AM radio with Democrat positions. Politicians with TV shows had to quit, unless their opponents were given equal TV shows.

Notice this is not at all fair speech. This is government defining fairness as meaning the policies and candidates of the party in power get more speech. Nobody advocated that a third and fourth radio slot, promoting libertarians and communists, would be necessary. Anything which restricts campaign donations and speech, benefits incumbents, because they can call a press conference at any time to announce how great their policies are.

One of the most egeregious examples of this, is a law recently signed by Governor DeSantis, that fines social media websites which ban Florida candidates running for office. The fines are different for statewide and national candidates. So to get free speech, first you have to register with the Florida Secretary of State. And you have to be nominated by the political machine of your party. Then your speech his protected. This “fairness” law is designed to benefit, and selected because it benefits, associates of DeSantis.

Notice for this deterrent to take effect requires government action, prosecution by incumbent government officials in Florida, such as the Attorney General. And it has to be facilitated by elected and appointed judges, and presumably even juries selected from the majority of voters. Suppose an opponent attempting to unseat the incumbent Governor or Attorney General, has his speech restricted on Facebook. The deterrent response will likely be much slower and more stilted, than if the incumbent had his speech abridged in the same way.

I was recently arrested, for the crime of making a nasty sarcastic comment about Florida political VIP’s I never met, in an email to an unrelated elected official on the other side of the state. Weeks later, I drove to a random law school and posted political fliers. I was arrested based on the theory this was a threat to one of the most important political VIP’s, in the majority faction in Florida. Around the same time, a member of this same party claimed in a serious tone in a recorded phone call to someone he knew, to have a plan to use a hit squad to kill a political candidate he was personally familiar with and lived near. But he was not arrested, because he is a party insider.

More recently I was detained and threatened by police, on the order of Ron DeSantis, for making a complaint to the Florida Inspector General about a political VIP in the same majority faction. Certainly no similar action would have taken place, if I complained about DeSantis opponents Nikki Fried or Charlie Crist. Political speech enforced by government is unlikely to be fair. What they call “law and order” is government using their discretion to apply or bend or misuse or ignore the law, to create whatever order keeps them in business.

The government is always far more dangerous and unfair, than private companies. A private company will usually survive by attracting as many customers as possible, rather than by being associated with a particular party or candidate. And a private company cannot control courts or police to stop competitors. But a government official is more likely to survive natural selection, to the extent he can use his law-enforcement power to stamp out the voices of his opponents. So any ordering of political speech by government action, is dictated by natural selection to be much more biased and violent, than by a private company.