Queen Elizabeth’s death yesterday prompted a global outpouring of grief from many of her fans, alongside discussion and debate about the complicated history of England’s monarchy. Much of this debate took place on Twitter, which, for better or worse, serves as a modern public square for commentary on current events.
But critics succeeded in at least partially silencing one such commentator: Carnegie Mellon University professor Uju Anya, who wrote on her personal account hours before the Queen’s death was announced: “I have heard that the head monarch of a genocidal empire the thief is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.“
oramid a wave of criticism – including from Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos — and calls for CMU to punish Anya, Twitter removed the tweet from its platform, citing a rules violation.
While Twitter censored Anya — likely under its dark rule that forbids “wishing, hoping or urging serious harm upon a person,” unless Twitter chooses, in its sole discretion, to make an exception – FIRE promote CMU refrained from doing so in a letter late yesterday, reminding the school that it promises faculty free expression.
“Let her pain be excruciating”
Thousands of critics took to Twitter to express their thoughts on Anya’s words. In a follow-up tweet, Anya doubled down:
If anyone expects me to express anything but contempt for the monarch who oversaw a government that sponsored a genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still struggling to overcome, you can continue to wish for a star
— Uju Anya (@JujuAnya) September 8, 2022
Anya’s critics ranged from anonymous Twitter users to BezosWho said that, “This is someone who is supposed to be working to make the world a better place? I do not think so. wow.” Others, however, supported Anya’s point of view, with one user tweets“I don’t know why they expect people to be merciful when the monarchy has gone around plundering the whole world.”
It seems the nos outweighed the yeses—if not in numbers, then in influence—because, within hours, Twitter removed Anya’s post.
By late afternoon, CMU, to its credit, issued a declaration condemning Anya but stating that “free speech is central to the mission of higher education.”
Twitter chooses censorship over free speech
In removing Anya’s tweet, Twitter cited a rule violation, but did not make it clear publicly which rule was violated. Twitter’s policies prohibit users from wishing the death of an individual or group of people except “in limited cases” — which, of course, Twitter must choose. This arbitrary enforcement lends credence to critics who claim Twitter applies its rules subjectively, favoring the loud and powerful.
Twitter itself pretends to serve the “public conversation” and represent “what people are talking about right now.” Anya’s voice is part of that conversation and should not be censored.
Although private social media companies like Twitter may have the authority to determine what content appears on their platforms, it is unwise for them to use that power to censor speech just because it is unpopular. There is value in diversity of viewpoints and in having knowledge of others’ arguments. By shutting down Anya’s speech, Twitter not only prevented Anya from expressing her point of view, but also prevented the public from learning more about her and hearing a perspective they might not have considered.
we have encouraged, and will continue to urge Twitter to look to First Amendment standards for guidance — specifically standards around viewpoint discrimination — when moderating content on its platform. To promote a culture of free expression — which FIRE believes should be encouraged throughout American society — Twitter must allow minority and dissenting views to exist on its platform. After all, Twitter itself pretends to serve the “public conversation” and represent “what people are talking about right now.” Anya’s voice is part of that conversation and should not be censored – despite the uproar that followed.
Is the First Amendment protecting someone’s desire for ‘torturous’ pain? You bet!
For good reason, the First Amendment protects most speech and allows diverse and subjectively offensive views to be expressed without government censorship. Speech unprotected by the First Amendment is limited to narrow categories with strict definitions set by the US Supreme Court. The three categories of unprotected speech that Anya’s tweets come closest to — but not yet — are “incitement,” “true threats,” and “fighting words.”
- Promotion is when someone advocates the use of force or breaking the law AND when the speech is “directed to induce or produce an imminent unlawful act and is likely to induce or produce such an act.” Anya’s tweets do not direct anyone to use force against the Queen, nor was any force likely to occur; but only occur at once, so they do not meet the definition of a trigger.
- or real threat is a statement through which “the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intention to commit an act of unlawful violence against a particular individual or group of individuals”. Although Anya’s tweets wish pain on Queen Elizabeth, they do not express an intention to commit violence or even a desire for someone else to commit violence – although that too is likely to be defended.
- of fighting words The exception includes language “likely to provoke an average person to retaliation and thereby cause a breach of the peace.” It lIMITED for insults or “direct personal” face-to-face invitations to “exchange punches”. Since Anya’s tweets were not addressed to anyone face-to-face, let alone the Queen, they cannot constitute fighting words.
As such, Twitter should have allowed the tweets to live, subject to debate and scrutiny, to contribute to the conversation around Queen Elizabeth’s death.
CMU must publicly refuse to investigate or punish the professor
Despite the public controversy, Anya’s tweets remain protected under First Amendment standards. Private institutions like CMU are not bound by the First Amendment to promise free speech, but, commendably, the university has chosen to do so. performing that it “values the freedoms of speech, thought, expression, and assembly—in themselves and as part of our core educational and intellectual mission.” CMU goes as far as tell “The university should be a place where all ideas can be expressed freely and where no alternative can be considered.”
Now that CMU has promised faculty free expression, it cannot back down from “all ideas can be expressed,” all but because people are crazy. CMU hasn’t backed down, but it also hasn’t ruled out threatening to punish Anya in its public statement. That’s why FIRE is asking CMU publicly commit not to investigate or punish Anya for speaking her mind. Like us said CMU:
While some may find the timing or content of speech about the deceased offensive, freedom of expression does not respect a period of mourning. It applies whether the eulogy for the last departed takes the form of a eulogy, eulogy, or something in between.
The disturbing pattern of censorship
This is far from the first time FIRE has seen faculty criticized for expressing satisfaction over the death of a public figure. When former First Lady Barbara Bush died in 2018, California State University Fresno professor Randa Jarrar was promised a “lengthy” investigation into her tweet celebrating the death and calling Bush a “generous, intelligent and amazing racist who, along with her husband, raised a war criminal”. FIRE and the ACLU of Northern California he wrote quickly school, which then fallen the investigation.
Now that CMU has promised faculty free expression, it cannot back down from “all ideas can be expressed,” all but because people are crazy.
And just last year, following the death of provocative radio host Rush Limbaugh, University of Alabama at Birmingham professor Sarah Parcak came under fire after tweeting that she had “no sympathy” and expressed a “wish” that Limbaugh “suffered until [his] Last breath.” Just a few days after the FIRE has written a letter defending the rights of Parcak, the university sent by email the student body, saying that it “recognizes the constitutionally protected rights of individuals to freedom of speech”.
We hope CMU does these institutions better by protecting faculty rights from the start and refusing to investigate or punish Anya. And while we hope the platform reinstates Anya’s tweet, in the future, we call on Twitter to recognize its essential role as a forum for public debate and protect free expression.
FIRE protects the rights of students and faculty members – regardless of their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you are a faculty member at a public college or university, call Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533).
