Coverage of 'Boycott Hulu' Shows Hypocrisy on Social Media
In late July, the Twitter hashtag “#boycotthulu” was trending. The boycott effort concerned how Hulu rejected abortion ads from Democrats. Ultimately, the streaming company relented and agreed to run ads, but many on the left made it seem as if Hulu’s earlier refusal had been unprecedented. Liberals claimed censorship because Hulu did not want to accept money to run their ads. But Hulu was not picking sides: it would not accept money from conservatives to run similar ads.
In recent years, social media companies have made similar decisions as Hulu – but these decisions received different coverage because they affected only conservatives. In 2020, Facebook took similar actions as Hulu. Facebook banned political ads one week before the election and after the election. The ban was content-neutral. Facebook did not see an uproar from its decision as Hulu later did. Studies have found that Facebook ads benefit Republicans more, so liberals might have not cared or may have even welcomed the ban, figuring it could help them.
Social media companies have often taken sides against conservatives. YouTube banned Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s video that merely provided clips of congressional testimony from conservatives concerning Covid-19. In the final days of the 2020 election, Twitter suspended the New York Post for a story concerning Hunter Biden’s laptop because Twitter considered it misinformation. Google threatened to kick the Federalist off its ad network because of the website’s conservative content.
Those who defend bans of conservative postings frequently invoke the platforms’ legal rights. After Donald Trump’s ban from social media, Reason published a defense, arguing that the First Amendment protects these companies’ actions. Many constitutional experts made similar arguments. The Cato Institute has decried any regulation of social media as a threat to free speech.
Commentator David French has expressed concern about censorship practiced by social media companies in the past. But lately, he has taken to defending social media’s decision to ban Trump and Parler from app stores. He viewed the decision to ban Trump as legally permissible and morally right. French has repeatedly invoked the First Amendment to defend social media companies’ bans.
Legally speaking, all of these arguments are correct. The current interpretation of free speech laws protects these removals. But just because someone legally has the right to remove content doesn’t mean that it’s the right decision. It is clear these examples violate the spirit of the First Amendment, which protects free speech that can result in an open discussion.
Many social media defenders told conservatives to “build their own” platform, yet no one told liberals to build their own Hulu or talked about how Hulu had a First Amendment right to conduct this kind of ban. French once called conservatives “grossly entitled” for their demand that the government intervene against social media censorship because these conservatives did not take part in creating these social media networks. “Grossly entitled” seems to describe liberals’ reaction to Hulu.
Todd Carney is a lawyer and frequent contributor to RealClearPolitics. He earned his juris doctorate from Harvard Law School. The views in this piece are his alone and do not reflect the views of his employer.
