Trump to sign executive order on social media amid Twitter furor

[Coughdrop addict]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...twitter-285891

Just so we're clear, if Trump's latest tantrum becomes law does that mean Hillary and Obama can sue any platform that has criticized or fact checked them? I know his order will be struct down as blatantly unconstitutional, but I am curious.

[Vanoi]

So to get back at Twitter, he is going sign an order that s with the law that protects all internet companies from legal liability in the US? Thats a big can of worms to open.

Lets see how long it takes before his executive order is challenged

[Cope]

Exposing social media platforms to lawsuits (if that is indeed what this order is about) will restrict, not enhance, free speech. Though they've largely brought this on themselves (and everyone else). They bent to politicized demands that they act like publishers; they shouldn't be shocked that people now want to treat them as such.

[Vanoi]

Brought this upon themselves? Its more like Trump had a tantrum over a Twitter post.

[sumskilz]

Exposing social media platforms to lawsuits (if that is indeed what this order is about) will restrict, not enhance, free speech.

My guess is that it will institute specific requirements that platforms will have to meet in order to maintain section 230 immunity.

Brought this upon themselves? Its more like Trump had a tantrum over a Twitter post.

This debate has been going on for awhile. Here's an article from May of 2018:

When the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on social media censorship late last month, liberal Democratic congressman Ted Lieu transformed into a hardcore libertarian. “This is a stupid and ridiculous hearing,” he said, because “the First Amendment applies to the government, not private companies.” He added that just as the government cannot tell Fox News what content to air, “we can’t tell Facebook what content to filter,” because that would be unconstitutional.

Lieu is incorrect. While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

When questioning Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg earlier this month, and in a subsequent op-ed, Cruz reasoned that “in order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be ‘neutral public forums.’ On the flip side, they should be considered to be a ‘publisher or speaker’ of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoken.” Tech-advocacy organizations and academics cried foul. University of Maryland law professor Danielle Citron argued that Cruz “flips [the] reasoning” of the law by demanding neutral forums. Elliot Harmon of the Electronic Freedom Foundation responded that “one of the reasons why Congress first passed Section 230 was to enable online platforms to engage in good-faith community moderation without fear of taking on undue liability for their users’ posts.”

As Cruz properly understands, Section 230 encourages Internet platforms to moderate “offensive” speech, but the law was not intended to facilitate political censorship. Online platforms should receive immunity only if they maintain viewpoint neutrality, consistent with traditional legal norms for distributors of information. Before the Internet, common law held that newsstands, bookstores, and libraries had no duty to ensure that each book and newspaper they distributed was not defamatory. Courts initially extended this principle to online platforms. Then, in 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete” objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

The Internet Association, which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, and other major platforms, claims that Section 230 is necessary for these firms to “provide forums and tools for the public to engage in a wide variety of activities that the First Amendment protects.” But rather than facilitate free speech, Silicon Valley now uses Section 230 to justify censorship, leading to a legal and policy muddle. For instance, in response to a lawsuit challenging its speech policies, Google claimed that restricting its right to censor would “impose liability on YouTube as a publisher.” In the same motion, Google argues that its right to restrict political content also derives from its “First Amendment protection for a publisher’s editorial judgments,” which “encompasses the choice of how to present, or even whether to present, particular content.”

The dominant social media companies must choose: if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.

I suspect Trump pushed forward a plan that was already in the works.

[Vanoi]

At the end of your article it says the courts or Congress should clarify the matter. The courts have done that. As recently as yesterday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-ruling-284632

“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But … ‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’ ... Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.

Trump's order doesn't really hold up legally.

[Cope]

My guess is that it will institute specific requirements that platforms will have to meet in order to maintain section 230 immunity.

We will see. A large part of the issue is that platforms have started burying independent content behind search and suggestion algorithms to facilitate "safe" corporate options which are preferred by advertisers. Whether this violates the provision which aims "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation" is an open question.

Nevertheless, I feel some degree of sympathy with certain platforms. Some have come under incredible political pressure to police their online spaces in conformance with certain ideological perspectives.

I suspect Trump pushed forward a plan that was already in the works.

I assume so. He - along with various other senior Republicans - has been complaining about social media for a while. This seems more like a trigger moment than a thoughtless knee jerk reaction.

[sumskilz]

At the end of your article it says the courts or Congress should clarify the matter. The courts have done that. As recently as yesterday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-ruling-284632

“Freedom Watch contends that, because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are engaged in state action. But … ‘a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.’ ... Freedom Watch fails to point to additional facts indicating that these Platforms are engaged in state action and thus fails to state a viable First Amendment claim,” the judges added.

Trump's order doesn't really hold up legally.

That's not exactly the same issue. It's mostly about whether or not platforms are legally liable for what appears on their websites. Currently, they aren't for the most part, on the grounds that it's users who decide what or what not to post. Republicans are arguing that if the platforms are increasingly deciding what can and can't be posted on their websites, that they should no longer have that immunity since that makes them effectively publishers.

[Vanoi]

That's not exactly the same issue. It's mostly about whether or not platforms are legally liable for what appears on their websites. Currently, they aren't for the most part, on the grounds that it's users who decide what or what not to post. Republicans are arguing that if the platforms are increasingly deciding what can and can't be posted on their websites, that they should no longer have that immunity since that makes them effectively publishers.

The issue is irrelevant but not what the court said. They made it clear as private entities social media platforms are allowed to regulate the content on their services. Trump's order could violate that if it imposes requirements regarding content on their services. Its a blatant overreach and a violation of their First Amendment rights.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/to...ech-2020-05-27

[B. W.]

Twitter doesn't seem to be very consistent in its standards:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-does-nothing/

[Vanoi]

Twitter doesn't seem to be very consistent in its standards:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-does-nothing/

It doesn't need to be. Btw did you actually read your source? Because i'm sure you missed this last part:

Twitter notified us at 8:53 pm EST — 12 hours after Ice Cube posted his original viral tweet, which accumulated 40,000 retweets in that timespan — that a “manipulated media” warning had been added to “hundreds” of tweets containing the doctored photo. At least two other tweets from verified users [1, 2] are still circulating, as of this update, without the warning label.

[B. W.]

It doesn't need to be. Btw did you actually read your source? Because i'm sure you missed this last part:

Nope, I didn't miss it. You may have missed the part where it says it is still being circulated without the warning label.

[Vanoi]

Nope, I didn't miss it. You may have missed the part where it says it is still being circulated without the warning label.

Oh i didn't miss it but the very fact Twitter did put the warning lable on hundreds of other posts with the same photo show they are trying to be consistent unlike the article claims.

Not that they have to be consistent. Being the private businesses they are and the rights that come with it.

[Coughdrop addict]

White House says Trump's intent is never to lie

White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Thursday defended a pair of tweets from President Trump that contained unfounded claims about mail-in voting and said the president aimed to always be truthful.
Reporters asked McEnany several times during Thursday's White House briefing about the tweets posted earlier this week that earned Trump his first fact check from Twitter.
The warning labels on the president's tweets have drawn considerable ire from the White House and its conservative allies.
"Are you saying that [Trump] has never lied to the public before?" a reporter asked McEnany.
“His intent is always to give truthful information to American people,” the press secretary replied.
McEnany also went on the offensive during the briefing, saying that "no one that should be fact-checked more than the mainstream media."

We're fast-approaching North Korea-levels of propaganda. How long until the Republicans mandate the worship of Dear Leader?

[tgoodenow]

Twitter using section 230 as a pretext to insert articles from the WaPo, CNN, etc. in the President's tweets are not the intended outcomes of 230.
Remove the 230 protections and treat them as a private business.

Joe Biden supports removing 230 protections as well FYI.

“Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said in the interview published Friday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/bide...ction-230.html

[B. W.]

The whole thing is about voter fraud. I know this is difficult for leftists to understand, but there was an objective. If you want to try and understand it, just check the twitter "fact check" and what the reality of voter fraud (which you can find on the voter fraud thread right here on this forum.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...r_twitter.html

[Prodromos]

Joe Biden supports removing 230 protections as well FYI.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/bide...ction-230.html

That's because increasing government control over the Internet is the Left's wet dream. The question is, why would any conservative advocate for it?

Donald Trump, angered by a recent Twitter fact-check, is reportedly going to sign an executive order that tasks the FCC with “clarifying” regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a federal law that protects online platforms from liability for the things posted by third-party users.

No one should be fooled. This would be an Obama-style executive abuse, meant not to “clarify” but to circumvent the will and intent of the legislative branch for partisan reasons. Section 230 wasn’t passed to regulate fairness or neutrality of political speech on platforms — a nebulous and unenforceable demand, even if it had been — but to allow websites to deal with online indecency.

In effect, Section 230 has restrained the kind of litigiousness that creates risk aversion and makes things like a free and open Internet impossible. Minimal regulatory oversight of the Internet has fostered robust discourse, the kind that would have been unimaginable to someone passing an Internet bill back in 1996. Yet, conservatives, constantly — and rightly — grousing about government overreach want to hand more regulatory power to the state.

“Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservatives voices,” Trump tweeted the other day. “We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again.”

What happened in 2016? Social media provided Trump with the power to bypass traditional media and speak directly to the American people. During his presidency, social media afforded Trump the ability to contest Russia-collusion accusations and other charges without having his words churned through the usual filters.

It is likewise ridiculous to contend that “conservatives” been “totally silenced” when, in many ways, Twitter has given them their biggest platform ever. Offhand, I can think of a half-dozen online personalities who have amassed more than a million followers. The only right-wingers with similar audiences in the mid-90s were radio talk-show hosts. Which is why liberals spent years arguing for “Fairness Doctrines” to regulate speech equity.

...

After all, when was the last time government intervention made speech more free or fair? Have conservatives forgotten that Citizens United was a decision sparked by bureaucrats who used existing election laws, passed in effort to ensure more “fairness,” to ban political speech? Have they forgotten that how easily IRS officials tasked as arbiters of that fair speech can abuse their power?

Maybe they’ll remember when Attorney General Kamala Harris is overseeing the White House Office of Digital Strategy and regulating online speech.

Full article: Trump's Internet Executive Order & Section 230: Circumvents Congress, Chills Speech | National Review

[Vanoi]

Twitter using section 230 as a pretext to insert articles from the WaPo, CNN, etc. in the President's tweets are not the intended outcomes of 230.
Remove the 230 protections and treat them as a private business.

Joe Biden supports removing 230 protections as well FYI.



https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/bide...ction-230.html

Too bad that repealing section 230 would affect every single American based internet platform not just social media. Good luck with that.

[tgoodenow]

Too bad that repealing section 230 would affect every single American based internet platform not just social media. Good luck with that.

I prefer Twitter and ATT being the arbiters of free speech no more than I do the government. If twitter is incapable of being a neutral party, they do not deserve the protections of one.

[Prodromos]

Closing down TWCenter to own the libs