What a weird situation it is to be on the grounds of a fenced-in state capitol building, where multiple state law enforcement agencies are patrolling the grounds, to witness an uncontested rally against censorship. As my first foray into journalism, I was delighted that this event I had come to document went without violence. As the day went on I came to realize this was an ideologically unorganized group: the speakers seemed to say contrasting views and the group ranged from typical conservatives to Stop the Steal Trump fans. This group seemed to be connected only by one cause that day: not wanting to be banned on social media.
The group, Drive for America, was organized in Florence County, South Carolina, and went up to the State Capitol building on Sunday, January 17th, 2021 to speak out against what they believed was targeted censorship by corporations. Having released their schedule in the local news, I knew nothing would start until about 1:30 PM that day and so aimed to get to Columbia by 11. With a few hours free before the event would start, my friend and I walked around the Capitol building admiring its architecture and being disappointed by the many statues of controversial and hateful people and movements (I.e Strom Thurman). After eating downtown and returning to the Capitol we began our documentation of the day’s events.
The first group we ran into was a small group, maybe 10 or 12, of counter-protestors who identified themselves with the group the boogaloo boys (a typically far-right group, this particular group seemed to identify more as libertarian than anything else). While covered up enough to where no one could identify them, they did not seem to be armed with tactical gear or weapons and were protesting against the more conservative group saying that they “are not real libertarians.” Talking with one member we learned the group was mad about many recent cases of abuse from the government against the first amendment: the police’s treatment towards BLM protestors over the summer was their main example.
At about 12:30 to 1 pm people from Drive For America started showing up and gradually the two groups began to interact with each other. The two groups began to argue over the Black Lives Matter protests of the last year. The argument shifted over time and the groups came to the consensus that the current government needs younger and more diverse people in power; with a few saying the current government needs to be purged, through voting some of them added. By the time the speeches started between 1:30 and 2 pm, the counter-protestors had left the capitol grounds.
The first speaker stated that his social media platform was “to expose pedophiles, sex offenders, and to protect our children” and “also stands for veterans and censored Americas.” He made a claim that “good-hearted Americas” are being censored for their beliefs while “pedophiles and child porn roam the internet like wildfire.” He then goes on to ask why are standing up for “Christian” and “American values” are “thought to be terrorism,” (it is unknown to me what exact claims he is referencing and trying to dispute). Afterward, he went on to make the claim that only one viewpoint is acceptable in America, the obvious implication being that the liberal viewpoint is the one that is acceptable (This claim is obviously a lie seeing as most conservatives that are banned, especially trump, are banned due to violation of TOS).
The third speaker was a woman dressed in a hoodie detailed with a punisher logo mixed with the American flag and a MAGA hat. Her speech centered around getting repeatedly banned on social media. She stated that she got for the first time because she “thought there was voter fraud and saw a lot of videos proving it, and when [she] shared those videos [she] got permanently banned,” and went on to say “even if they’re conspiracy theories, I don’t remember conspiracy theories being a problem, but for some reason, they will take you off of social media for it.” These claims can be obviously disputed by only looking at the last few weeks (at the time of writing this) and seeing that the “Stop The Steal” conspiracy theory did lead to violence that left around 5 people dead at the nation's capital. As it is against most if not all social medias’ TOS to “Incite violence” it is in the rules, that these people agreed to when they joined the app, that allows these companies to ban them for spreading this conspiracy. Her answer to how they fight these companies’ censorship was to stop making profiles that they can ban.
The 5th speaker who goes by the ConservativeLatino83 and started out his speech by stating he hates Identity Politics. Mad because he thinks that anyone who has an American flag, loves their country, or (probably more importantly) anyone who voted for Donald J Trump is called a White Supremacist, Nazi, or “far-right extremist who hates everybody.” His response to why he isn’t a bigot was that he owes his life to a gay guy that he served with in Afghanistan and that he is friends with “people of all different Crayola colors, on TikTok.” He then talks about how there are Mexican-Americans, African-Americans, and Asian Americans and then states “anyone ever heard of a black-Frenchman.” Stating that these terms “segregate us in this country.” I have never heard of a claim that people having an ethnic background divides them from other people and underplays the large number of socio-economic factors that divide America racially. Contrasting with the 3rd speaker, he believed that the way to combat social media companies was to keep make profiles and spreading your opinions, someone in the crowd shouted that the companies would eventually IP ban them.
In an interview with the event organizer, I asked him how to effectively combat the censorship done by these companies. His response was very similar to the third speaker in that he believed that the best way was for people to stop using these platforms or just let these companies know they’re angry. I would question the effectiveness of this as many companies will only stand for causes that are generally popular (except for a few, Ben and Jerry’s comes to mind). As conservatives are a currently decreasing group, in terms of percentage, companies have less and less risk in presenting opposing viewpoints in advertising and operations.
Most speakers mentioned that if we allow companies to censure conservatives then what is next and how much are we willing to let them do. While this is a question all people should consider when it is due to people just breaking the TOS it doesn’t present an active threat to everyone. Left-leaning content creators have been dealing with differing levels of censorship by companies like Youtube for a while but I am not going to discuss this here.
While this group may have only consisted of 40 or so people and only about 10 speakers, I think this small group still represents some of the larger trends in right-wing politics and maybe politics as a whole. As people become more and more online (critically online as some people call those who are extremely online) we have witnessed more and more people believe that they are owed a platform. Some people have even forgotten the extent of the first amendment, as spreading conspiracy theories does have outside world affects the “yelling fire in a crowded theatre” exemption can apply. It is strange that people can both live in a reality where they depend upon being able to use social media but also don’t accept that it is now a part of the real world and has consequences.
It is as if these people view Social Media as nothing more than a wall they can throw their opinions on that like-minded people will clap at, leave, and then do nothing afterward. It is the individualization of action in that these people believe, at least outwardly, that people are only responsible for what they do. This can go into believing that minorities aren’t hindered from socio-economic factors and biases inherent to the system but can go the opposite direction in believing that they are not responsible when a conspiracy theory they spread results in violence merely because they denounce the violence.
An interesting experience, to say the least, I usually interact with right-wing views usually only from afar, online. It has been a long time since I have interacted with this group without a critical voice speaking against their views and it gives me a little understanding of how these people operate. Most are not progressive in any sense of the term and do not understand that difference in politics can mean more than a simple difference in opinion. They may have LGBTQ+ friends but find it somehow not dissonant to vote for someone who actively acts against the interests of the members of that community. This is another case of the individualization of issues in that they are vindicated in voting for the preservation of larger socio-economic issues through being kind towards these communities at an individual level.
If we on the left are to create a larger ideological project I do not believe we can only interact with and try to understand the right through the bigger figures like Ben Shapiro, Richard Spencer, and Donald Trump. While many of the ideas most politically active right-wing people project are from figures like these we must also understand how these people take in and apply the concepts that are espoused by these figures. A lot of these arguments are built upon ignored dissonance and blatant hypocrisy but after my experience, I do not believe that we can argumentatively combat and possibly ideologically transform these people without understanding the average person who believes this rather than their leaders. But if you go out in the world and interact with these people: remember to be safe!
