Parler, QAnon, and the Freedom of Speech
03.03.2021
On January 6, 2021, the United States Capitol was stormed, shocking people across the nation as seemingly everyone collectively scrambled to explain what we had witnessed. Some said that this was only a flash in a wider, more sinister problem, while others argued that the events of that day did not define the true character of America. Ultimately, even with disagreements on what this event meant in the legacy of this country, most everyone could agree that this was done by a movement who wanted to be heard. For this growing group behind the attack, the raiding of the Capitol was only a single moment in a campaign to take down an elite of and to protect the country with the guidance of then-president Donald Trump. Those inspired by this narrative of falsehoods had originally found a movement and a community online. From there it only took some time before the execution of “The Storm.”
QAnon is a far right conspiracy theory which was started in 2016. It shares its origins from theories like and has since evolved into wider theories that involve a group of sinister corrupt elites, , and Mr. Trump, who supposedly was put into office to fight against it. Sites like Parler and Gab are breeding sites for the ideas similar to and supportive of QAnon. Marketed as new and elevated forms of social networking sites, they act as foils to applications like Instagram or Twitter which are . Despite these perceptions having been disproven as incorrect by the and , the sentiment remains ever-strong. With the permanent suspension of Donald Trump from Twitter, the reasoning to migrate to alternative sites only increases. It only takes a single perusal of Gab’s front page to find hateful content and a few simple clicks to find the featured QAnon group along with many others ranging from “Cooking” to “Joe Biden Is Not My President.”
Ultimately, the argument for the continuation of sites like Parler and Gab lies in the ever-present debate of how we are able to balance freedom with safety. The First Amendment is often cited as a catch-all in conversations on deplatforming and censorship, but with its simplification, it can often be forgotten that not all speech is made equal. Supreme Court cases like Schenck v. United States which established the and which ruled that obscenity was not constitutionally protected. In a , Apple cited the social networking site’s removal from the App Store being due to, “[the] continued… direct threats of violence and calls to incite lawless action in violation of Guideline 1.1- Safety -Objectionable Content” reflecting a view that is reminiscent to that of constitutionally unprotected speech.
Even as problematic as these new social networks have shown themselves to be, it must be remembered that freedom of speech is incredibly valuable and does not just impact a single political ideology. Over the summer of 2020, protests in favor of the Black Lives Matter utilized the freedom to assemble just as much as those at the storming of the Capitol. Establishing a precedent impacts more than just the intended target, and we have to consider that the solution for solving violence of this variety is not and will not be easy.
In the country founded by protest and rebellion, it is unlikely that this debate will ever truly end. The internet landscape is constantly changing and growing just like the wants of the people. As movements rise, so too do their reactionary counterparts and innovations to share those ideologies. After all, even if the likes of Parler and Gab or the ideas of QAnon die out, we cannot predict what will take their place.
Abigail Lee
henriquez@andrews.edu
