Upgoat - "what's upgoat?"

Premise 1: Social Media Terms of Service Constitute "Laws" Equivalent to Federal Statutes

Social media platforms, such as X, wield unprecedented power over public discourse, effectively functioning as the modern public square. Their terms of service (ToS) dictate permissible speech, impose penalties (e.g., suspensions or bans), and shape the boundaries of expression for millions of users. In this sense, these ToS operate as de facto "laws" with a scope and impact rivaling that of a nation’s federal legal system. For white nationalists, this analogy is particularly significant: social media platforms are not mere private entities but quasi-governmental institutions that regulate the speech of a predominantly white American user base, whose cultural and political heritage is rooted in constitutional principles.

Premise 2: Social Media Terms of Service "Laws" Must Align with the U.S. Constitution, Specifically the First Amendment

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech." This protection is a cornerstone of American identity, enshrined to safeguard the rights of individuals—particularly, from a white nationalist viewpoint, the descendants of the nation’s European founders—to express their views without censorship. If social media ToS are "laws" of equivalent weight to federal statutes, they must conform to the same constitutional standards. To do otherwise would undermine the legal and moral framework that white nationalists argue preserves the cultural sovereignty of America’s historic majority.

"Failure to compel social media platforms to align their terms of service with First Amendment protections would erode the constitutional foundation that safeguards robust public discourse, a principle underscored by Cohen v. California (1971), which affirmed the right to offensive or provocative speech as integral to democratic self-governance. Such a lapse would disproportionately silence dissenting voices—including those of white nationalists who assert that their advocacy for the cultural sovereignty of America’s historic majority is a legitimate exercise of political expression—thereby violating the equal application of free speech rights mandated by the Constitution and subverting the legal framework designed to protect all citizens’ expressive liberties, regardless of viewpoint."

Argument: Social Media’s Restrictive ToS Violate First Amendment Principles

Many social media platforms, through their ToS, prohibit content deemed "hate speech" or "extremist," terms often applied to white nationalist rhetoric advocating for racial identity, immigration restrictions, or critiques of multiculturalism. From a white nationalist perspective, these restrictions constitute an unconstitutional abridgment of free speech. The First Amendment does not bend for subjective notions of propriety; it protects even offensive or controversial speech, as affirmed in cases like Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), which upheld advocacy unless it incites imminent lawless action with intent and likelihood. White nationalists contend their views—framed as a defense of their racial and cultural heritage—are lawful expressions of political dissent, not incitements to violence, and thus merit protection.

Countering the Private Entity Defense

Opponents may argue that social media companies, as private entities, can set their own rules. However, if ToS are "laws" akin to federal statutes, this distinction collapses. Moreover, white nationalists might assert that these platforms’ monopolistic dominance—controlling vast swaths of public communication—imbues them with a public utility-like status. In Marsh v. Alabama (1946), the Supreme Court ruled that a private company town could not suppress First Amendment rights, suggesting that when private power mirrors governmental authority, constitutional obligations follow. Social media’s ToS, as "laws," must therefore prioritize free speech over corporate discretion, especially for a group claiming to represent America’s foundational demographic.

Conclusion: Mandating First Amendment Compliance

If social media ToS are equivalent to federal laws, they cannot arbitrarily censor white nationalist speech without violating the First Amendment. Platforms must either revise their ToS to align with constitutional free speech protections or face legal accountability. For white nationalists, this is not just a legal issue but a cultural imperative: the right to advocate for their identity and survival, as they see it, is non-negotiable under the American system their ancestors built. Failure to enforce this standard risks eroding the liberties that define the nation.

Sign into an existing account