Zhou Lian,  "Thoughts about Political Philosophy"

Zhou Lian, “Thoughts about Political Philosophy Inspired by the Total Blockage of Trump on Social Media” [1]

Introduction and Translation by David Ownby
 
Introduction
 
Zhou Lian (b. 1974) is Professor of Philosophy at Renmin University, and a well-known Liberal intellectual.  The titles of the first four articles appearing on Zhou’s Aisixiang page—“Individual Freedom and the Rise of Great Powers,” “Why Hayek was not a Conservative,” “The Quicksand State of Contemporary Chinese Political Culture,” and “Hayek and Rawls on Social Justice”—point to Zhou’s attachment  to classical liberalism, as do his references in the text translated here (John Stuart Mill, Isaiah Berlin).
 
The text translated here was published on Zhou’s WeChat feed, and, like Shi Zhan’s text, represents Zhou’s thoughts following the massive reaction in China to the decision by Twitter, and other American social media, to close Trump’s Internet accounts in the wake of the January 6 storming of the Capitol in Washington (see this New York Times article).  Much of this discussion followed similar partisan lines as in the United States, with Chinese Trump supporters (egged on by China’s official media) denouncing Twitter’s action as a violation of free speech, while those opposed to Trump pointed out that in constitutional terms, only government authorities can violate free speech—Twitter, as a private company, can refuse service without incurring legal consequences.  Zhou argues that Twitter & co. clearly have the legal right to close Trump’s accounts, but, echoing John Stuart Mill, he worries about the dangers of too much restraint on free speech.  Politics is the art of compromise, of getting along, not of winning and banishing the enemy. 

My thanks to Xu Jilin for suggesting this text to me.

Links to other texts of this site

Click here for texts related to the theme of constitutional rule.

Click here for texts related to the theme of democracy.

Click here for texts related to Donald Trump.

Click here for texts related to the Internet.

Click here for texts related to the theme of liberalism.

Translation
 
From the perspective of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, only government actors can infringe on freedom of speech. Twitter and other social media belong to private commercial organizations, and are not in a position to do so. In this sense, while the social media blockage of Trump does indeed restrict Trump's speech, it does not harm Trump's right to freedom of speech in a legal sense.

At least until January 20, Trump remains the most powerful man in the world, and in this sense, the collective blockage of him by social media and the mainstream media should be seen first and foremost as a check on his power rather than a violation of his freedom of expression. In fact, if the principle of "be suspicious of public power, but tolerant of private rights 恶猜公权、善待私权"[2] is respected, then Trump is should indeed be an object of suspicion. Therefore, those who denounce the mainstream media for being suspicious of Trump, but praise Trump’s bravery when he brazenly disses the mainstream media, do so without justification. Of course, in the name of consistency, after Biden takes office, the mainstream media—both left and right—should continue to second-guess public power, and if they fail to do so, then we can really take a serious look at the issue of the depravity of the mainstream media. 

Trump's speech at the White House rally on January 6 met the classic justification for constraining freedom of speech given by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935):  "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Once again, this formulation makes it clear that the legislature and government actors are those who restrict free speech.  
Before the official handover of presidential power on January 20, social media platforms closed Trump's accounts, which is a measure of "prior restraint" on his speech. Although there is no legal infringement of freedom of speech in this case, opponents may question its reasonableness and appropriateness in terms of "proportionality" and "real outcome." 

In terms of proportionality, other options obviously existed, such as deleting specific statements by Trump, or blocking his accounts until the 20th, etc. In contrast, the permanent blocking of Trump, and especially the simultaneous blocking of more than 70,000 private accounts[3] belonging to those spreading conspiracy theories, is open to discussion. (I will further elaborate on this issue below). 

In terms of real outcomes, supporters of the permanent closing of Trump’s accounts and of his second impeachment argue that these measures are necessary to avoid an escalation of the conflict and to ensure the transition of power at the top, but opponents are justifiably concerned that it will further inflame conflict in the short term, and lead to a loss of unity and stability in American politics in the long term.

What the future holds is impossible to predict. Looking at Pence's performance over the past week, although he pleased no one, neither on the left nor on the right, being denounced as a traitor by Trump supporters for refusing to overturn the electoral votes, and reviled by his political enemies for opposing the second impeachment of Trump, years from now, looking back at Pence's performance during this life-or-death week (whether he was motivated by political calculations or some sense of political integrity), history may be kinder to him.

Perhaps the more serious question is that, given the enormous power that social media and mainstream media have come to exercise in influencing public opinion and the direction of politics, in the near future we should redefine their status, no longer seeing them as the fourth estate, coming after the legislative, executive, and judicial bodies, but as a power equal to or in the future perhaps even surpassing the first three, in which case it would be necessary to redefine the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on the issue of who can infringe on free speech.

Indeed, some recent social media initiatives are sufficient to remind us of John Stuart Mill's (1806-1873) concern: " Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling…There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism."

It is important to emphasize that " Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This statement conveys solely the belief that freedom of speech is paramount, and one must not be so bound to the text itself as to think that all speech is free. Looking back on the more than two hundred years of American history, the Supreme Court has ruled that a number of expressions are unprotected, such as perjury in a court of law, false fire alarms that cause public panic, solicitation or reward for murder, false commercial advertising, obscenity, provocation, and hate speech. Such speech has been banned because it violates the harm doctrine.

The question, of course, is what counts as “harm?” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) said, " it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god." If this argument holds, the next question is: if we can talk about God so recklessly, then why can we say “speech impediment” but not “stutter,” “overweight” but not “fat?”  The obvious answer is that these statements, while not physically harmful to vulnerable groups, are psychologically offensive to their feelings and dignity. The emotions and dignity of vulnerable groups should of course be respected and protected, but if the standard for limiting freedom of expression slips from the "harm principle" to the "offense principle," and if the standard for deciding what is offensive is left entirely to the offended rather than to public rational discussion, it is inevitable that some people will worry about harm to freedom of expression. 

Why should we choose to tolerate views that seem "ridiculous" to us, such  as spreading conspiracy theories, if they do not pose a clear and immediate danger, are not "perjury in a court of law, falsely reporting a fire to cause public panic, soliciting or offering a reward for murder, publishing false commercial advertising, obscene, provocative and hate speech?” Mill's answer is: first, we can never be sure that the opinion we are trying to ban is wrong, because "there is a world of difference between holding an opinion to be correct because it has not been refuted in all competing contexts, and holding it to be correct because it is irrefutable."

Second, even if we can establish that it is wrong, it is still wrong to forbid it. For "however true it may be, if it isn’t fully, frequently and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma rather than as a living truth." And third, " on every subject on which difference of opinion is possible, the truth depends on a balance to be struck between two sets of conflicting reasons."

“Consider the standing antagonisms of practical life, including: democracy vs. aristocracy, property vs. equality, co-operation vs. competition, luxury vs. abstinence, sociality vs. individuality, liberty vs. discipline, and so on. Unless opinions favorable to each side of each of these are expressed with equal freedom and pressed and defended with equal talent and energy, there is no chance of both the conflicting elements obtaining their due; one scale is sure to go up and the other down. In the great practical concerns of life, truth is very much a matter of reconciling and combining opposites.” 
 
I still agree with Isaiah Berlin’s (1909-1997) summary of Mill, i.e., that it is neither possible nor desirable to have "a final solution to human problems, or universal agreement on all key issues.”  Politics is about learning to live with people who disagree with you deeply on fundamental issues. 

Notes

[1] 周濂, “从社交媒体全面封杀川普引发的政治哲学思考,” published on Zhou’s WeChat feed on January 15, 2021.

[2] Translator’s note:  This quote is attributed to Xiao Han 萧瀚 (b. 1969).  Xiao is a Professor in the Law Faculty of China University of Political Science and Law, and was well known as a Liberal commentator on public affairs in the 2000s.  His “principle” means that the government must always be held to account, while the people should always be given the benefit of the doubt. 

​[3] Translator’s note:  The author uses the term 小号, which means “alt accounts” (“alternative accounts”), referring to secondary accounts, perhaps under assumed names.