Mark Levin said the First Amendment does not apply to private social media moderation and supported deplatforming “lowlifes” who spread harmful content. On his new podcast “Liberty’s Voice,” the host said the amendment limits government censorship while private companies can set their own standards for harmful content.

MARK LEVIN: It’s not the first time things like this have happened, but it really is problematic because so much of it is protected. And you heard people say, don’t you believe in the First Amendment? They don’t even know what the First Amendment believes. Do you want to de-platform people? You know, the libs do that. I don’t have any problem with de-platforming Nazis or jihadis. I don’t have any problem with de-platforming them. What does that mean, de-platforming them? Government law? No. It means that X or Twitter or Facebook or Amazon with Twitch and so forth says, you know what, you’re a low life. We’re not paying, you know, get off our platform. What’s wrong with that? It’s called private enterprise. I got no problem with that. I mean, what if they have this horrific pornography on? Is that okay? No, it’s not okay. What if they have a bunch of drug addicts, you know, shooting up all the time? Is that okay? No, that’s not okay. Because our kids have access to it. People who are impressionable have access to it. What if they have people screaming at the top of the lung saying, assassinate this guy and assassinate that guy? Well, they shouldn’t do that. Why? What’s the standard? You need to have a standard. What should the law be? What does the Constitution say? I just think we’ve taken this too far because we’re not even talking about political speech, which is the most protected of all speech. We do limit speech. We limit speech pornography. We limit speech cigarettes on the air. And so we limit speech booze, limit speech drugs, and I could go on and on and on. There’s different types of speech. There’s commercial speech, right? There’s religious speech. There’s political speech. They’re babbling buffoons. We see that all over the internet. Most of that is protected too. But I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the kind of speech that really gets in the head of people who want to do grave damage to other people. Incitement. And I’m not talking about it in an ambiguous way. When you get a guy that talks about killing a senator, oh, I really didn’t mean it. Or when you get a guy that says, yeah, I don’t know if there’s really rape. Can you prove it? And so forth on October 7th. Well, he’s allowed to say that. But in the pattern of what this person is saying, what is it that they’re trying to do? Have a real discussion? No. I don’t know if he’ll say that, but he’s not. The overthrow of the country? Let me ask you this. Do you think the founders would have put up with this?

RealClearPolitics Videos