Now digital platforms dictate justice | …

Today, they are censoring a violent and undemocratic leader, who builds a certain social approval and a propensity to sympathize with the measure. But tomorrow they can do it with democratic and peaceful leaders. The action to be measured is to censor.

Freedom of speech is the ability to say, write, read, and post whatever you want. All kinds of ideas, opinions and points of view must be able to be expressed in public. Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental points of human rights.

You can have the most qualified apprehensions on Donald trump. And most likely, the worst considerations about his government and his personality are correct. Moreover, it would not be a bad historical lesson for the future if they launched a political trial under Amendment 25 of his National Constitution and removed him from office. Some prominent members of the political, military and social life of the United States believe, even with only 11 days left before he leaves office, that it is very dangerous that he still has power over the use of the American nuclear arsenal and that it could still cause a lot of damage. to the country’s formal institutions.

There, they, the leaders of this country and their way of resolving the conflicts resulting from the political struggle. In this case, strongly framed in the violent, anti-democratic, quasi-coup and messianic attitudes of their own president.

We place all this in one place of the analysis, but in another we observe with a certain spur and we also consider as dangerous as private companies, such as large digital platforms. Twitter and Facebook, they self-attribute judicial qualities and block Trump’s accounts, preventing the president from accessing their networks, and thus depriving millions of Americans of knowing, through these important and massive instruments, what their main reference.

It is not true, as some claim, that Trump was left speechless. This applies to networks, but Trump can speak, write, and record audios for thousands of newspapers, TV stations, radios, magazines, blogs, and even other audio-visual formats (in case they don’t censor him) such than You Tube and Whatsapp. But the truth is, in the world’s most important news distribution spaces, and where Trump himself has built his direct link with his country’s electorate, he has been censored.

It makes sense to ask if what Face and Guasap are doing places them before their definitive role as media of a new kind and distances them from the supposedly neutral meaning of mere content intermediaries. Here in this case they seem to have an opinion on what Trump is posting, it is clear that they are spoiling the content and it is visible that they are choosing to censor. In other words, they consider an opinion (perhaps tense, bestial, violent) but ultimately an opinion as a crime. But they are not judges to do it and set an extremely threatening precedent in the field of public freedoms and human rights.

If what Trump says is an opinion, his right to express it is inviolable and if what he says is a crime, it will be justice, and not a private company, which must decide. It’s simple

It can be argued that Trump’s censorship on networks does not violate freedom of expression but rather punishes the act of promoting violent action or encouraging the generation of concrete violence which is no longer protected by law. freedom of expression. We add this to understand another look at the subject.

The Supreme Court of the United States makes a subtle but necessary distinction in what it calls “combative words” and upholds the test that freedom of expression can be limited in the face of incitement to hatred and not by simple manifestation of hateful ideas or opinions.

But most scholars agree that freedom of expression has no limits: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; This right includes the right not to be disturbed by their opinions, to investigate and receive information and opinions, and to disseminate them, without limitation of borders, by any means of expression, ”says the article. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Rights. Humans.

There is a certain constitutional jurisprudence in the United States, which is taken up by European courts and has even been established by the European Court of Human Rights, which was called “the free market of ideas”, this space being the “essential guarantee” For there to be a broad and complete discussion.

In a judgment of the European Court known as sentence 235/2007 “Librería Europa case”, the court ruled that “Our constitutional system does not allow the mere transmission of ideas to be qualified as a crime, not even in cases where they are loathsome ideas. to be contrary to human dignity “

There may be different interpretations of what freedom of expression means, but no one doubts that it is one of the most precious human rights. This is why it is worrying that such a legal dimension is managed by private companies because it is risky for the democratic pacts of companies. Beyond Trump.

Osvaldo Nemirovsci is national deputy mc – Rio Negro. President of the Communication and Informatics Commission 2003/2007. General coordinator of the Argentine digital television system 2009/2015