![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/jonathanturley.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/Rose_City_Antifa_logo.png?ssl=1\"){kind=logo}
<\/a>Facebook is\u00a0under fire this week<\/a>\u00a0after it was discovered that the company has allowed Rose City Antifa, a violent group associated with riots for many years, to maintain a\u00a0Facebook<\/a>\u00a0page despite the company\u2019s controversial program to take down certain sites.\u00a0 As will come as no surprise to many on this blog, I would not have the page taken down on free speech grounds. My greatest fear is not Antifa (which I have\u00a0criticized for years<\/a>) but the growing censorship of the Internet.\u00a0 While I\u00a0recently testified about Antifa, and specifically Rose City Antifa<\/a>, as part of a\u00a0violent anti-free speech movement<\/a>, I have\u00a0opposed declaring them terrorist organizations<\/a>\u00a0and believe that their speech should be protected. While Facebook is a private company not subject to the First Amendment\u2019s limits, it should adhere to free speech values on the Internet.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
RCA is arguably the oldest Antifa group in the United States and was founded in Portland.\u00a0 In 2013, various groups that were part of The Anti-Racist Action Network (ARA), including RCA, formed a new coordinating organization referred to as the \u201cTorch Network.\u201d This lack of structure not only appealed to the anarchist elements in the movement but served the practical benefit of evading law enforcement and lawsuits. While some have attempted to hold such members accountable, like journalist Andy Ngo who sued RCA for assaulting him, such lawsuits struggle with finding witnesses and assets for an effective case. \u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n Under Facebook\u2019s \u201cDangerous Individuals and Organizations policy\u201d the company pledged to \u201caddress organizations and movements that have demonstrated significant risks to public safety.\u201d It has removed a number of far right and far left groups.<\/p>\n We have previously discussed how governments and politicians have demanded greater and greater censorship of the Internet, which is the greatest vehicle of free speech ever developed.\u00a0 The\u00a0erosion of free speech on social media and the Internet<\/a>\u00a0includes calls from\u00a0leading Democratic leaders<\/a>\u00a0for years to implement private censorship of political speech, a\u00a0view supported by academics<\/a>\u00a0who have declared that \u201cChina was right\u201d about censorship.\u00a0 Recently, Democratic Nominee Joe Biden pushed for censoring statements by Trump and others opposing mail-in voting.<\/p>\n My views of free speech are well known.\u00a0 RCA is an extremist group but it also engages in protected speech.\u00a0 We need to criminally address its conduct, not its speech.\u00a0 It is the difference between advocating violence and acting violently. If the site is actively arranging attacks or directing riotings, it is more than just speech. It generally does not do that. It calls for counter demonstrations on such sites but leaves the violent elements to local members.\u00a0 Once you start censoring such sites for the actions of some members, it puts the Internet on a slippery slope of speech regulation.\u00a0 Many organizations, including Black Lives Matter, have had violent followers but there are still important parts of a non-violent debate over issues like racial justice.<\/p>\n However, there is another reason why these pages should not be censored.\u00a0 It is far better to have such groups operating openly where they can be monitored. We saw in Germany that suppressing neo-Nazi groups just forced them underground while doing little to deter their expansion.\u00a0 It is better for law enforcement and others to have these groups more visible.\u00a0 On Facebook, these groups can be challenged and their extreme views exposed.\u00a0 When forced underground, the groups claim that they are victims of \u201cfascists\u201d and their hateful views grow unimpeded in radical echo-chambers.<\/p>\n Antifa is arguably the most successful anti-free speech movement in modern history. It has the direct or indirect support of some academics and many students. Indeed, the recent controversy over statements made by\u00a0a Connecticut professor and a Rhode Island professor<\/a>\u00a0on the killing of a conservative counter protester reflects how such views are become more common.\u00a0 Some of these individuals oppose the free speech protections that we afforded them, at least when extended to those with opposing views.\u00a0 However, they are the price of true free speech.<\/p>\n