As justified as it was for Twitter, Facebook and others to ban President Donald Trump from their platforms, the issue requires further discussion. The bans were justified because Trump fomented violent insurrection with his incessant lies about election fraud. Previous warnings from social media companies for Trump to rein himself in came with no serious consequences and, unsurprisingly, Trump continued abusing his privileges. His eventual expulsion, only after lives were lost, had the feel of a barn door being closed too late.

The still-developing norms of online self-policing require specific, transparent, measurable standards of fact and civic responsibility that the platforms can apply across the board to all public figures as a matter of consistent policy — and not just after violence ensues.

Begin by clearing away the ideological smoke of Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and other aggrieved conservatives who like to throw around the word "censorship" where it doesn't apply. The First Amendment prohibits actual censorship — that is, the use of government force to prevent the free exchange of ideas — but it doesn't prohibit private businesses from setting standards of use for their own platforms.

But the social media platforms do enjoy special protection under federal law: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally shields them from legal liability for the things their users post. That protection, created in 1996 to ensure the nascent internet wasn't smothered in its cradle by litigation, contains no restrictions on the platforms' right to remove dangerous content, but they also cannot be hauled into court for what they might miss.

It's a protection that comes with obligations to ensure their sites aren't used by bad actors to spread disinformation and undermine democracy, as Russia did on behalf of Trump in the 2016 elections — and as Trump himself has done in this year's elections.

Before and after Nov. 3, Trump repeatedly posted lies that the elections were fraudulent. He claimed he actually won in a "landslide" and that victory was stolen from him — even as his campaign lawyers got tossed from around 60 courtrooms for the utter absence of proof. Twitter finally started flagging his false tweets, but the tweets themselves remained. Polls show they had the intended effect, convincing a majority of Republican voters of the lie that the elections were illegitimate.

The attackers on Jan. 6 were driven by the belief in this nonexistent mass vote fraud and by Trump's calls for disruption of the electoral-certification process. Some even devised plans to "capture and assassinate" elected officials, the Justice Department stated in federal court last week.

Allowing unfettered debate around elected officials' social media accounts is intrinsically valuable to democracy until those officials use the platforms to lie, bully and promote calls for violence. Those are among the triggers that should prompt bans going forward — and not just in the aftermath of actual violence.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Photo credit: Pixelkult at Pixabay