A Ban Against Black Activism

The nation and the entire black community woke up to the news of Facebook’s “Hammer fall” banning some high-profile individuals whose views it described as “dangerous.” This new and sudden ban imposed by the social media giant targeted Louis Farrakhan, the long-time leader and outspoken member of the Nation of Islam. According to Facebook, the ban became necessary as it seeks better ways to rid its website of “hate and provocative” speech and “dangerous” people and organizations.

The ban doesn’t just affect Farrakhan’s Facebook account but also his Instagram and Twitter accounts.

While Facebook, a private company has the right to ban whomever it deems fit, it’s still a bad idea and it’s an exercise design to run down black artistic values and potency among other things that could be considered unpolitically correct. Before we go any further, let’s have a brief understanding of the man called Louis Farrakhan.

Louis Farrakhan—A Figure Of Controversy

Louis Farrakhan was born Louis Eugene Walcott on May 11, 1933, in Bronx, New York. Farrakhan joined the Nation of Islam in 1955. He continued as a member and in 1978, he and a group broke away to form a faction of the Nation of Islam that taught and preserve the original teachings of The Honorable Elijah Muhammad.

Louis Farrakhan’s life as a Muslim has been dogged with lots of controversies. First, some suspected he may have been complicit in the death of Malcolm X, a formal member of the Elijah Muhammad group but left after some disagreement with Elijah himself. Malcolm X departure from the group and his subsequent revelations that Elijah Muhammad fathered children with a host of his secretaries received condemnation from Farrakhan who described Malcolm as a traitor and did comment that “such a man is worthy of death”. Well, two months after making such statements, Malcolm X was assassinated. Louis Farrakhan would later apologize to the family of Malcolm X for the statements he made.

Farrakhan has also faced accusations of “anti-Semitism,” especially in the course of defending Jesse Jackson’s alleged anti-Semitic stance against Jews in the 1980s. While he has also had issues with civil rights movements like the NAACP, he was highly hailed and respected for organizing the famous Million Man March in 1995 that seeked to press home issues facing the black community in the U.S. Hundreds of thousands showed up for the march, which further popularized Farrakhan. However, a year later, Farrakhan generated another controversy again when he visited Libya and made a donation by the late Muammar Gaddafi, which the federal government didn’t allow him to receive.

No doubt, for the most part of his life, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan has been a controversial figure.

But, there were others before and now…and the ban hammer didn’t fall on them…

Why Louis Farrakhan?

The Orwellian Era in Steady Reverse Gear

Freedom of speech/expression is not just a constitutional right, but also a natural right. It is one of the founding principles of American democracy. The right to freedom of speech as enshrined in the First Amendment presupposes that all Americans have the right to criticize the government and bare their minds on public issues without fear of being prosecuted or censored.

While there are limits to this right, in that, individuals are not entitled to speech that presents danger to the well-being of others or society, as declared by the Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States (1919), authorities (whether public or private) mustn’t construe all divergent views as “threatening.” That much was the view of the Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio when the court stated that, even an inflammatory speech like racist language used by a Ku Klux Klan leader, “should” be protected unless it is likely to lead to “imminent violence.”

While people may view the two judgments above as contradictory, what the court tries to do is to establish the intent of the First Amendment. People have the right to say what they want to say irrespective of political and religious ideology. The fact that government acting as an umpire has the duty to keep society safe from inflammatory tendency, it and whatever organization (Facebook, Instagram or any other social media platform) must not always conjure an excuse to do that by stifling free speech, especially when they appear divergent.

But, unfortunately, what we are seeing now is a steady but systematic departure from the balanced intent of the First Amendment right as interpreted by the courts. The recent ban of Louis Farrakhan and a host of others is nothing but pure censorship in play. In fact, it is a clear case of reliving the Orwellian notion of “social demo-crazy” (oh sorry-but-not-sorry, democracy). That’s right! “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”—in full reverse.

How?

Facebook said the ban was necessary because Farrakhan’s views and statements are “dangerous,” but Facebook never stated explicitly the particular views and statements made by Louis Farrakhan that are “dangerous” as such that they are capable of causing imminent public chaos.

Louis Farrakhan has been a controversial figure all his life but never has he incited any form of public violence in more than three decades of being the leader of the Nation of Islam. So how is he a dangerous individual? Which of his remarks poses an imminent danger to the society or public safety, even if such remarks were seen as “racist” and “anti-Semitic”?

When Florida’s pastor Terry Jones threatened publicly to burn multiple copies of the Koran, how many of his Facebook or Twitter accounts were banned or restricted for such inflammatory statements? None!

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu (and many members of his cabinet) is an avowed racist, a man who believes and publicly states that black people are children of the Devil, and even publicly hate the sight of Africans and ask them to leave the country (Israel)—how many of his or cabinet members Twitter and Facebook accounts were taken down? None!

So, when Facebook says the company has “always” banned individuals and groups that portray hate and dangerous tendencies, regardless of ideology, it’s a way for them to save face. It’s a stark reminder of the Orwellian depiction of social democracy, which is very bad for black society.

Tell us; how do Farrakhan’s views promote terrorist activity, organized hate, mass or serial murder, organized violence or criminal activities, or human trafficking—grounds for which Facebook initiate bans against individuals and groups? If this is not pure Orwellian demo-crazy and ideological censorship at work, then we wonder what is. Louis Farrakhan is being punished today for being an unapologetically black activist and his views don’t align with those of Facebook and the government on many levels. This ban also shows that Facebook is aligned with a particular ideology otherwise, we see no reason why people like Benjamin Netanyahu should get away with their purely racist and provocative remarks while others like Louis Farrakhan are punished and deemed “dangerous.”

If “right-wing” views are no longer welcome, then Facebook and all other social media platforms should clearly state that in their policy agreement section so that the millions of people that are seen as believing in “conspiracy theories” (which is just a term recklessly used to derail truth) would know it’s strictly for “left-wing” views, and they have no business using the platforms. It is pathetic that America is fast descending to such a low standard. 

Censorship Is Growing In America, And It’s A Problem

As stated earlier at the beginning of this article, Facebook as a private organization has the right to ban whomever they want to ban. No need for a reminder. However, once you start operating under the laws of America, then you should be ready to abide by such laws (if they are reasonable and just), which include the freedom of speech inherent in the citizenship of every American. A big organization that boasts over a billion users finding themselves censoring ideas that they deem improper is playing their own dangerous game. Facebook’s decision to ban the likes of Louis Farrakhan for alleged stupid, awful expressions is not a wise decision. Rather, it is a blatant attempt to stifle the truth and suppress certain ideological beliefs that another ideological set considers dangerous, contemptuous and evil. Again, the Orwellian animated social democratic doctrine of “bias equality” comes into play. Here, some animals (ideology A) believe that its beliefs are superior and better than the other animals (ideology B).

The tendency to regulate, police and eliminate beliefs that are not mainstream mocks the pillars of a nation built on freedom of expression, and the process will only get worse, as evident from the turbulence in colleges across the country.

Instead of giving users sophisticated tools that will enable them to filter contents, Facebook and many other social media platforms have chosen censorship for all the wrong reasons. Censorship tramps on people’s rights and the fact that some of the tech giants and social media platforms are now actively implementing it confirm they fear a direct government intervention and have decided to be complicit at some points.

It is no longer news that the likes of Senator Josh Hawley and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have threatened to gut Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to regulate free speech online and bring the internet to a grinding halt.

In Europe, more laws are being implemented to stifle the free exchange of information as an excuse to protect legacy entertainment ventures. The aftermath of the U.S. 2016 elections and the foolish claim that Russian bots influenced the outcome has added fuel to the negative institutional response we are currently experiencing.

All Internet users have been witnessing the attempt to strangle net neutrality by the proposed adoptions of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Central Intelligent Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).

Censorship is an ideological tool employed by those who are desperate to hold onto power. Censorship is also a tactic employed by those who are in a position that is powerful enough to control the narrative and make sure that the masses continue to have a slave mentality. Those in power fear that they are losing control over the thoughts and actions of the masses and now censorship tactics are being implemented in order to dictate to people what they should think and how they should move in this society.

How This Affects Black Artists in General

The ban on Louis Farrakhan is an attempt to stifle black activism. Many black people throughout history have fought for rights and freedoms the same way Louis Farrakhan has fought for black people. Black people have fought for freedom, and many paid the price with their life.

If we should allow what happened to Farrakhan to go down as a minor issue, soon, black artists, black entrepreneurs, and black content creators will find it very difficult to provide the right kind of content that defines their own narratives in addition to countering disinformation and resisting oppression. We must rise against censorship.

Censorship is another way to silence dissenting opinions/views. Censorship is another way to silence the truth; a truth that can be very real and important for serious positive change. A truth that can cause a great awakening among the masses. Black artists have a duty to push the envelope and make sure that our voices are heard or else!

There has always been a narrative about black people, which strongly highlights negative stereotypes and diminishes our humanity in the eyes of the masses. One of the answers is counter-narrative. Black artists should always use their art/voice to counter the wrong narratives and outright bullshit propaganda that is damaging to black people as a whole.

Why Black Artists Need To Keep Exercising Their 1st Amendment Rights

We owe it to ourselves, our ancestors and our (future) children to continue to fight. This goes beyond simply getting kicked off social media platforms for what is considered “hate speech.” This is a way for giant companies and racist people in power (and not so much in power), to shut down possible black revolutionaries. Silencing strong black leaders is nothing new. We know what the U.S. government has done to black people throughout history.

For instance, we remember the assassination of eminent black activists like Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We know and still, remember the bombing of Tulsa, Oklahoma “The Black Wall Street.” We know and still, remember how the Black Panther party was infiltrated and dismantled. We know how black people are misrepresented in the media (even until this day). We also know how they are systematically dropping loads of guns and drugs in black neighborhoods, then the War on Drugs (aka the War on Black People) and the disproportionate amount of black people in prison, and more. All of this is the ugly reality every one of us should be aware of.

Louis Farrakhan isn’t a starting point and won’t be the ending point for power-hungry corporations that wield the censorship stick against black people and their perceived political and ideological enemies. The way to fight back is to continue to protest, innovate, and create content that define and describe the black narrative by black people alone. Louis Farrakhan is simply a proxy when it comes to this pointless ban. This is more so a warning shot to black activism and black disruption. It’s a warning shot to black content creators that are exposing the truth. The goal post is constantly being shifted. We have to continue to meet those challenges head on and employ counter-strategies that are effective enough to expose the holes in this fallacious “democratic” machine. Now is not the time to become silent. Now is the time to get louder!