Pro Andrew Tate; Ban Wasn’t Justified

The question of boundaries regarding social media is a fairly recent issue. The problem of modern society is that personal and political agendas have undermined the right, as defined in the United States Constitution, to freedom of speech. As one of the fundamental rights of every American citizen, the freedom to express one’s opinions should be guaranteed. This issue gets stickier, however, when one’s opinion is deemed as “hate speech,” “offensive,” or inconsiderate. When someone’s right to freedom of speech leads to an infringement or personal attack on another’s freedom, a dilemma arises. When, if ever, is censorship allowable, and what is the role of government and private companies in the process? 

 One extremely prevalent example today that helps to elucidate the underlying issues is the case of Andrew Tate. Andrew Tate, a former kickboxer turned influencer and owner of the Hustler’s University website, has come under fire for his comments on sexism, domestic abuse, and, more generally, “hate speech.” Tate has responded to the bans, saying that he takes responsibility for the way in which his comments were received. However, he also says that people have taken his comments out of context. In reality, it is fairly self-evident that Tate has said some things which were clearly offensive and inconsiderate. The argument is not whether he is in the right, but rather whether Twitter, TikTok, and other social media platforms should have banned him. As a self-described misogynist, Tate has clearly said hurtful things. However, this does not mean that he should be banned.  

On Tate’s website, he says “Society is influencing you for society’s well-being. They don’t want you to be free.” In other words, just because an opinion is unpopular or deemed as harmful is not basis enough for censorship. Many commonplace opinions today were once censored. The most famous example would be Jesus, who taught to “love one’s neighbor as oneself.” At the time, this seemed extremely unorthodox, and his teachings were censored in many places. The point is that society does not have the right to silence one person’s beliefs just because they find it inconvenient or offensive. This is especially the case over social media, where there is no direct physical manifestation of a harmful opinion. For example, if someone personally finds the posts of someone like Andrew Tate extraordinarily hurtful, they can block his account and ignore everything he says. This should be the role of the individual, and not of some large corporation. 

Another issue with censorship in cases such as Tate is the precedent that it sets. Just because someone holds a belief that another thinks is objectively wrong does not mean they should be censored. Since human beings are flawed, a popular opinion may, in fact, be wrong. Even though Andrew Tate’s opinions may be hurtful, censorship leads to a more restrictive form of government. As an extreme example, take the regime of Hitler. He was able to gain power by silencing the voices of his political opponents. While the example of Tate is a far cry from the totalitarian regime of Hitler, there is a very fine line between preventing hateful opinions and manipulating peoples’ rights to free speech. The role of the government is not to tell the people what to think or believe, or even to regulate the expression of said beliefs. Rather, the government should only become involved when direct harm of citizens is involved.

One more extremely important example was the buildup to the Civil War. At the time, abolitionist beliefs were extremely unpopular, and many of them deemed to be, in fact, wrong. However, the government did not censor people like Frederick Douglas. Instead, because the people were able to openly express differing beliefs, we were able to move forward as a nation.  

There is obviously no realistic comparison between Andrew Tate and Frederick Douglass, but if the government starts to encroach on the free speech of unpopular opinions, there is no telling where it will stop. Rather, we need to take a step back and allow for a diversity of opinions within American society while protecting the constitutionally guaranteed rights of every individual. Andrew Tate may be crazy, but he still deserves a space to voice his opinions.