Block al-Awlaki's hate speech from the Web

I am a journalist and a free-speech advocate, and I believe people have a right to say what they think. I have traveled the world and have seen what happens in countries where there is no free speech and where the media are controlled by the government. In non-free speech countries, corruption abounds. No one dares to hold the government accountable.

As a 1951 baby boomer, I grew up in the mid-century. We had two black phones in our house, and when we wanted to make a long-distance call, we had to talk to the operator. I saw my first colored television in 1958. If you wanted to exercise your free-speech rights so many people could know your views, you had to purchase ad space in a newspaper or pay for a billboard. Another option was to somehow convince the broadcast people that they should sell you ad time to support your cause.

Now, in the beginning decades of the 21st century, we have social media. If you want free speech, you can upload something to YouTube, write a blog or put what you believe on Facebook.

There are limits to free speech, however. The famous Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said in 1919 case, Schenck v. United States, that free speech does not include "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater."

In 2008, in a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court voted to uphold a law that said "pandering" child pornography on the Internet is not protected by the free-speech provision of the Constitution. Earlier in 2003, the Supreme Court said it is illegal to burn a cross when the purpose of the cross burning is intimidation. Cross burning, when not a threat, can still be considered free speech. The same is true of flag burning. In 1989, when arguing the case concerning flag burning, Attorney William Kunstler mentioned that our own flag had been made by cutting up the British flag.

TRENDING: Bombshell memo declassified by Trump: It looks like FBI slow-walked investigation into Hillary campaign

Talk-show host Bob Grant was fired by his employer for some of what he said. He was given the Talker's Freedom of Speech Award, but his employer was also cited for exercising his free speech by firing him. Free speech can go both ways.

Now a new issue is confronting all of us. What does the Internet mean for free speech? What is hate speech? What is a direct or indirect threat, and what responsibility do social media companies such as YouTube and Facebook have?

I am going to raise the ire of my free-speech colleagues here, but I do not think that Anwar al-Awlaki's speeches should be available on the corporately owned Internet. I also do not think he should have been killed by a drone without a trial. He was an American citizen, and we don't kill people just because they call for violence. However, he is no longer on the planet, and many of his sermons have motivated people to kill and become martyrs.

Mark Wallace, who many consider to be the George W. Bush-era homeland security "go-to" guy, said in an interview, "It's hate speech. It should come down, period. Like child porn, it should be expeditiously removed."

Many say his earlier sermons do not advocate violence and should be allowed to be viewed on the Internet.

Juxtaposed to this is the fact that – at the same time many Republicans want to take down what they consider hate speech – Republicans also don't want the Centers for Disease Control to look at the causes of gun violence. The two go hand in hand. Hate speech is connected to violence, in my opinion. Hate speech can normalize violent behavior.

Facebook and others groups don't want to take down direct or even implied threats. They cite free speech. That is a mistake. Had some of what has been put on Facebook been put on billboards when I was growing up, the companies allowing those billboards would have been pilloried in newspapers and by the public. What has now changed that allows Facebook, YouTube and other social media to allow this kind of speech to be available to the public?

Facebook and YouTube are the billboards of the 21st century. It is irresponsible for social media companies to allow people to view questionable speech. Yes, much of this is "protected" speech. But then why not have these people start their own website? It is time for YouTube and Facebook as well as others to exercise their free-speech rights and get rid of the lectures of people like Anwar al-Awlaki, even the ones that are "non-violent." There is no place in civil society for anyone who advocates violence.

Media wishing to interview Ellen Ratner, please contact [email protected].