{"id":10128,"date":"2021-08-25T11:29:03","date_gmt":"2021-08-25T09:29:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newws.leibniz-hbi.de\/?p=10128"},"modified":"2026-08-19T07:50:35","modified_gmt":"2026-08-19T05:50:35","slug":"twitter-trump-and-the-taliban-the-need-for-better-rules-for-online-speech-governance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newws.leibniz-hbi.de\/en\/twitter-trump-and-the-taliban-the-need-for-better-rules-for-online-speech-governance\/","title":{"rendered":"Twitter, Trump and The Taliban \u2013 The Need for Better Rules for Online Speech Governance"},"content":{"rendered":"

How come\u00a0the Taliban have access to social media while former President Trump does not? The short answer is that Trump has deliberately violated the internal speech rules of social media companies before being banned while certain Taliban and Taliban-affiliated accounts have not done so recently or consistently. They are, however, often banned and\/or suspended. But things are complicated.<\/p>\n

by Martin Fertmann<\/a>, Matthias C. Kettemann<\/a>, David Morar and Wolfgang Schulz<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Social media companies have emerged as important normative actors. Their decisions have global implications. They are, more unwillingly than not, in the middle of some of the world\u2019s key political conflicts. Especially in situations of political instability, the power of defining communication rules matters. Whether in Syria, in Kenya, Uganda, in India or most recently in Myanmar: the decisions that social media companies take reverberate around the globe.<\/p>\n

Platforms therefore have to carefully assess how to engage with violent and powerful actors, especially if they – as the Taliban now – exercise state powers. This is one of the reasons why social media platforms had a hard time dealing with Trump – and kept the former US President online long after he had thoroughly violated platform rules.<\/p>\n

As we have shown in a recent study<\/a>, the exercise of private power over public speech is often contested, but the conflicts are magnified when this power is asserted over parties, political candidates and office-holders that function as focal points for public debates. While most platforms\u2019 terms of use and enforcement systems are global, opinions relating to any preferential treatment of speech by well-known political figures and office holders vary across national, political and legal contexts.<\/p>\n

Banning the Taliban?<\/h2>\n

Can Twitter ban the Taliban? Yes, it can. While Twitter is certainly an important global communication platform, it is under no specific duty to provide access to media to any government, much less to a non internationally-recognized military dictatorship. But when it bans the Taliban (or anyone else, for that matter), Twitter has to apply its rules fairly to its users. Applying rules equally, without unfair distinction, is a staple of most national legal orders. While private companies enjoy substantial freedom in deciding which contracts to enter into (under what conditions and with whom), this freedom is more limited when these platforms provide a service that approaches non-substitutability, that is when they exercise substantial power over the communication spaces they have constructed. As we have argued elsewhere<\/a>, the private orders of companies are part of, and intrinsically linked to, the communicative space they provide. In designing this space, and setting rules, their freedom to choose the rules and enforcement tools they like gets increasingly smaller<\/a>. This is at the heart of demands for more transparency and accountability. At least in Germany, the Supreme Court (BGH) has recently ruled<\/a> that before an account is banned, the concerned user has to have an opportunity to defend themselves. (For deleted postings, the BGH demanded a limited ex post review).<\/p>\n

To the case at hand: Was Twitter wrong in banning Trump but not the Taliban? Let\u2019s check the facts:<\/p>\n