How the First Amendment's Meaning Has Been Twisted

No matter who you are, what you support, or what party you claim to be, many have connected the actions committed at the Capitol on January 6th to the actions of the President. When his social media accounts were banned, many said that his freedom of speech and press had been taken away. Others begged to differ.

Throughout the young history of one of the richest countries in the world, people seem to feel a growing entitlement, and with that comes the bending of the law so that it fits their situation. The confusion happens when we mistake government policy for private and public policies. The Constitution explicitly states:

Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

This law only applies to the government, not to giant private and public corporations, such as Twitter and Instagram. People assume because of his position he is like the people—entitled to whatever they want. However, just because his platform reaches more than the average person does not mean he should turn blind to his responsibilities as a government official; when expressing strong opinions on social media, followers react emotionally to his frustrations. Therefore, despite his position as the President, non-governmental organizations are not required to give him a platform if they believe he is violating their policies. As the people for which these laws were written, we all need to understand how and when they apply to the country we live in.