Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies

[Pookie]

Could this end up affecting Literotica if Trump were to get his way? For example, could BusyBody sue Laurel over being banned?


https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is set to announce an executive order against social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets "potentially misleading."

The draft executive order being prepared by the Trump administration tests the boundaries of the White House's authority. In a long-shot legal bid, it seeks to curtail the power of large social media platforms by reinterpreting a critical 1996 law that shields websites and tech companies from lawsuits.

...

The draft order, which was reviewed by CNN, targets a law known as the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of the legislation provides broad immunity to websites that curate and moderate their own platforms, and has been described by legal experts as "the 26 words that created the internet."

It argues that the protections hinge mainly on tech platforms operating in "good faith," and that social media companies have not.

"In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online," the draft order says. "This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power."


Discuss.

 

[Adre]

Well, it involves the Decency Act, which would not seem to apply to BusyBody in any way.

 

[surdeep]

Telephone Companies are not legally responsible for what people say on the telephone.

Section 230 gave internet companies the same standing.

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"

 

[RobDownSouth]

Legal Scholar (and leading virologist) Spearechucker has long opined that "Freedom of Speech" implies "Freedom from Criticism"....he even came up with a neologism for it: "ad hominem by class".

 

[jaF0]

' we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand-pick the speech that Americans may access and convey online," the draft order says. "This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. "[/I]


Discuss.

DonnyDumbutt don't know nuffin' 'bout no Constipitution.

 

[InsightRiot]

This announcement crashed their stock.
Haha! Job well done.

 

[Liar]

"Finally, the draft order would direct the Federal Trade Commission to report on complaints about political bias collected by the White House and to consider bringing lawsuits against companies accused of violating the administration's interpretation of Section 230."

Report on complaints about political bias collected by a, by definition, politically biased entity. Alrighty then.

 

[HisArpy]

Within the last 1 or 2 days I mentioned that if social media won't regulate itself, then government will step in and do it for them.

Currently, social media platforms are "saying" that they're "neutral" in what speech they allow, but their actual conduct indicates otherwise. There have been studies on this which show that conservative speech gets censored at a higher rate than progressive speech. The how/why is being hotly contested but the underlying data shows that social media is not doing what they claim.

Further, it's rather incongruent when social media portrays itself as the electronic public square yet simultaneously invokes the protections of "private property" which they claim allow them to limit the speech that they invited to only the speech they agree with.

A recent development has been the beginning narrative that if you don't like being censored, go start your own social media platform and say whatever you want there. This doesn't work because the major players use their financial and social media weight to prevent competition (which is what Alphabet is being investigated for in violation of anti-trust laws). It also doesn't work because it basically creates a speech-based version of "separate but equal" discriminatory conduct.

Removing the protections that internet platforms have for liability because of discrimination or other prohibited conduct is one of the tools in the toolbox of regulation. Social media has to fix the problems they created or those problems will be solved for them by big government.

 

[Adre]

Some crash, down 2%.

 

[FlowersForFun]

Legal Scholar (and leading virologist) Spearechucker has long opined that "Freedom of Speech" implies "Freedom from Criticism"....he even came up with a neologism for it: "ad hominem by class".

99.9999999999% chance this is a total fucking lie and Rob will NEVER support this claim.

It's just what Rob does.

 

[Adre]

Oh, look who’s now rooting for big government to solve our issues.

 

[renard_ruse]

Obviously this and far more should have been done his first week in office. Its nowhere near enough.

 

[chillywilly2]

If Impeached president trump didn't lie so much this wouldn't even be a thing

 

[InsightRiot]

If the first magic black president had done this while in office he could have buried Trump in 2016.

 

[chillywilly2]

Well, it involves the Decency Act, which would not seem to apply to BusyBody in any way.

and trump...don't forget trump

 

[jaF0]

"Congress (Government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yet, Der Dumph' want to do exactly that, restrict free speech on private sites.

I find the MAGAhat and the Orange Rag of Hate offensive and inflammatory and think they should be banned, but Congress can't really do that.

 

[HisArpy]

"Congress (Government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yet, Der Dumph' want to do exactly that, restrict free speech on private sites.

I find the MAGAhat and the Orange Rag of Hate offensive and inflammatory and think they should be banned, but Congress can't really do that.

Speech can be regulated. Regulation is not even close to "abridging" speech. Especially when the regulation is designed to promote ALL speech over limited or restricted or "approved" speech.

 

[RobDownSouth]

99.9999999999% chance this is a total fucking lie and Rob will NEVER support this claim.

It's just what Rob does.

Here are a few examples...

Look, we're sorry you were molested by a priest, but this note is getting pretty damned old Nellie...
It's bigotry, ad Hominem by circumstance (class).

All religion (pastors/reverends/priests) are bad because you got groped, yada, yada, yada...,

ad Hominem by circumstance (class).
You're on the same level as Jen...

You're a typical Democrat inasmuch as you lead with an ad Hominem by Circumstance (class) and then when I fail to take up your weak gambit and act like you are capable of sober and serious debate, you take up with the real name-calling and then, if you follow your usual pattern, racist and incestual comments about my daughter.

The "verbal ju-jitsu' skills of the tolerant and diversity loving free-speech crowd.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh, look who’s now rooting for big government to solve our issues.

And who is "rooting" for big gov to do this?

All I personally have said is that if private enterprise won't regulate itself, the government will do it for them.

The choice is private enterprise's, not mine.

 

[HisArpy]

If Impeached president trump didn't lie so much this wouldn't even be a thing

Even lies are protected speech.

 

[Pookie]

Would Twitter tagging a note to a user's post be considered "protected speech"?

 

[Rotadom]

Even lies are protected speech.

Even in libel cases?

 

[spacekowboy]

Even lies are protected speech.

So you're saying that the president willfully spreads disinformation to the public?

 

[Richard_C]

"Congress (Government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Yet, Der Dumph' want to do exactly that, restrict free speech on private sites.

I find the MAGAhat and the Orange Rag of Hate offensive and inflammatory and think they should be banned, but Congress can't really do that.

Rather, he want's to remove restrictions. His intention is to allow all sides to speak freely. Does that bother you? Are you afraid of what might happen if social media platforms can no longer censor speech from the party they don't like?? Hmmmmm? Scared of the open expressions of ideas and language?? Hmmmm?

 

[HisArpy]

Even in libel cases?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from liability. People seem to believe that if they invoke the 1st Amendment they can say anything they want and no one can do anything about it.

If you say something false that defames someone, you're liable for it. You have the Right to SAY it, but that doesn't mean you're not going to be held liable.