Is Andrew Tate’s permanent ban from social media a violation of the First Amendment?
Andrew Tate, former British-American kickboxer who is best known for making controversial remarks online, has been banned from a host of social media platforms in recent weeks, NBC reported.
In the months leading up to his ban, the 35-year-old’s following had grown rapidly, and subsequently — so did his influence.
TikTok, the platform most associated with Tate’s notoriety, had been quietly removing videos linked to Tate for weeks, according to a statement from the company. Last week, Facebook and Instagram permanently banned Tate from using their platforms.
YouTube then joined in on the ban on Tuesday. Twitter also barred Tate but has not yet confirmed when his removal was initiated.
Tate appeared in a television interview with Tucker Carlson on Thursday night, where he claimed that he was banned from social media for being “masculine.”
“They banned me simply because I have large swaths of the population agreeing to very traditional masculine values. Teenage men and young men… were looking up to me and aspiring to be like me,” Tate said on the Fox News show. “I have a very traditionally masculine life; I have fast cars and a big house and a lot of money and a beautiful girlfriend.”
However, the social media sites that banned him cite violations of platform policies against hate speech and violence as the reason for his removal.
Why was Andrew Tate banned?
Google Trends data from July revealed that “Andrew Tate” was entered into the search engine more times than Kim Kardashian or Donald Trump.
Before Tate’s accounts were removed from social media, he had amassed over 4.6 million Instagram followers and nearly one million subscribers on YouTube.
Additionally, TikTok videos tagged with #AndrewTate have been viewed more than 14.5 billion times since Tate rose to infamy earlier this summer, according to data from the company.
Most recently, footage from various podcast appearances and video clips the self-proclaimed mogul made himself have been shortened and spread around TikTok as viral fodder, leading to a boost in Tate’s global following.
Almost all of the viral videos featuring Tate, most of which have been removed, contain comments that could be considered a violation of platform rules for most social media sites.
Those comments range from saying women who are raped should bear some responsibility for their attacks to sharing in detail how he would choke and strike a woman with a machete he keeps by his bed if she ever accused him of being unfaithful.
Aside from detailing violence against women, Tate’s videos often target those who seek mental health treatment, members of the LGBTQIA+ community and people of color.
The ban followed concerns that Tate’s videos might be influencing minors
TikTok accounts belonging to teen boys and young men often flood the comments section of Tate-associated videos with “common tate w,” a term used to describe agreement with Tate’s remarks or praise for his statements. It effectively translates to “common Tate win.”
One U.K. teacher, Nadeine Asbali, penned a letter for The New Statesman that addresses Tate and the impact he has on young men. In the article, Asbali warns that Tate’s videos could convince impressionable young boys that his behavior is acceptable.
“The strain of masculinity offered by men such as Tate is attractive to young boys craving validation and male role models, and he exploits these vulnerabilities,” Asbali wrote. “It’s time for schools, community leaders and families to step in and get there before he does.”
Is Tate’s ban from social media a violation of free speech rights?
Andrew Tate’s permanent barring from social media platforms is not considered censorship by the Constitution’s standard.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech as it pertains to government-sanctioned censorship. Social media platforms are private companies that require users, Tate included, to agree to their terms of service before creating an account.
Those terms of service often mention anti-hate speech and non-violence policies. The violation of those policies could lead to temporary suspensions, or in Tate’s case, a permanent ban from the platform.
Meta, the company that owns both Facebook and Instagram, provides clear examples of what could be considered violations of policy.
The policy considers direct attacks against people on the basis of race, gender and other characteristics as a form of hate speech. Additionally, Meta’s policy defines “attacks” as “violent or dehumanizing speech, harmful stereotypes, statements of inferiority, expressions of contempt, disgust or dismissal, cursing and calls for exclusion or segregation.”
According to Ivy Choi, a spokeswoman for YouTube, Tate and other YouTube channels associated with him were removed from the site for “multiple violations of (YouTube’s) Community Guidelines and Terms of Service, including (YouTube’s) hate speech policy,” The New York Times reported.
A spokesperson for Twitter also confirmed to NYT that Tate’s official account had been removed for violating the platform’s rules.
Although Tate never owned an official TikTok account — despite it being the platform where he first gained the majority of his following — the social media platform said in a statement that they had already been removing videos that feature Tate leading up to his ban, Sky News reported.
This story was originally published August 27, 2022 at 9:00 AM.
