Facebook Deems Native Americans’ Names Fake

Not everyone has a plain Jack and Jill name.  In fact, baby name trends for 2015 suggest parents have left behind classic names in favor of “an increasingly adventurous spirit in baby naming.”  That means 2015 kids are ending up with names after their parent’s favorite vegetable, like Kale, or a stylish nature names, such as River.  But trendy baby names are not the only unique forms of identification.  Traditionally, Native Americans choose distinct, individualized names that reflect both tribal heritage and culture.  These names are so important to Native American tradition that some tribes wait to name children until puberty; they believe a name should come from a child’s own life experiences.  Yet, despite the deep value of these names, Facebook’s attempt to purge Facebook users with false names is blocking Native Americans from registering for a page with their real names.  While 2015 children with new, trendy names are unlikely to have Facebook pages and thereby avoid the negative effects of the Facebook name watch (as newborns are not old enough to create their own pages), Native Americans are experiencing these chilling effects in full force.  They are left to choose between submitting to Facebook an incorrect, more “Americanized” name, contacting Facebook officials to request an exception for their names, or not using Facebook at all.

Facebook’s official name policy emphasizes that real names are part of the Facebook culture.  Facebook’s terms of agreement explain, “Facebook is a community where people use their authentic identities. We require people to provide the name they use in real life; that way, you always know who you’re connecting with. This helps keep our community safe.”  So is it fair that, in the name of alleged safety, Native Americans feel the effects of name discrimination?  And how far does these purported safety concerns limit free speech?

Shane Creepingbear, a Native American and Assistant Director of Admissions at Antioch College, explains that while Facebook’s discrimination is non-intentional, “this complicity is tremendously damaging to those groups of people whose lives have been systematically destabilized and disrupted over the past centuries.”  Creepingbear argues that Facebook creates too many roadblocks for Native Americans attempting to prove their names are real.  Facebook asks those submitting their names for consideration (after the site’s processors deem the name likely fake) to release private information that extends beyond inconvenient—it becomes a privacy violation in a world of poor information control.

Native Americans are not the first Facebook users to find the name policy troubling. In 2014 the LGBT community spoke out against the Facebook requirement requiring a user’s legal names.  After Facebook implemented its name policy, drag queen Ruby Roo of New York explained, “While my drag career is my business, my only source of income, if Facebook wants us to use fan pages then they need to give us the same benefits that regular profiles have, like tagging statuses and pictures.”  Roo felt Facebook’s policy interfered with her right to make contacts and promote himself the way she wanted to be known.  In additional to the LGBT community, doctors and therapists use pen names for social media sites to avoid clients friending them.  Negating Facebook’s safety argument, many victims of domestic violence or stalking use Facebook pseudonyms to avoid harassers.  So Facebook’s name policy is certainly controversial.

In response to the 2014 criticism, Facebook publically apologized to the LGBT community.  Yet, Facebook stood by their name policy, stating, “it’s part of what made Facebook special in the first place, [and] it’s a powerful source of good.”  The apology does not address those wishing to remain anonymous for reasons of their own safety.  Further, it ignores frustration with the policy in the name of discrimination.  And finally, as users have pointed out, Facebook ignores anonymity as an element of free speech.

The First Amendment protects the right to free speech.  In 1995, the Supreme Court held in Ohio v. McIntyre that “Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”  Yet despite this holding, Facebook’s laws on speech operate outside the First Amendment.  Jeffry Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, explains, “the First Amendment only binds the government—not private corporations.”  So legally, the free speech argument is moot.  Facebook can limit speech all it wants.  If users wish to fix Facebook’s discriminatory name policy, they will have to argue that the discrimination is wrong but not that it violates freedom of speech in name choice.

*Katie is a third year law student at Wake Forest School. Before attending law school, she studied English Literature at Clemson University. She is from Fort Mill, South Carolina and enjoys riding horses, reading, and skiing in her free time.