Posted on 07/29/2020 5:09:01 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
“Can someone please explain how any President could have this kind of authority, legitimately?”
“The petition requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarify that Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users’ speech to escape civil liability.”
How Section 230 is interpreted by the Executive Branch, unless spelled out by Congress first, is under the President’s authority. But if the law already provides the direction in the text, then the President (and FCC) could not change the interpretation.
I think most laws are made deliberately vague to give administrators huge leeway in how they are enforced. And that IS a huge problem with how Congress does its job. But...if Congress did not spell it out, then a federal agency in the Executive Branch would have to do so.
Y’all should read the article.
I wish I was as optimistic as you. My guess is they will ignore it, and steadily increase censorship of conservatives the closer to the election we get. Then if Biden wins, its over.
> Google employees were caught on video admitting that Google interferes in the election <
Google is a private company. So their employees have every right to slant their company towards the Democrats. Just as Free Republic has every right to slant this site towards Trump.
And as I noted before, the 1A free speech argument doesn’t apply. The 1A was meant to protect you from government censorship, not from private party censorship.
But here’s what might apply. Google is so big that it might be considered a monopoly. I happen to believe that’s true. Break ‘em up on that basis.
He can not legally do this. But, you rest assured, the democrats get back into power? And they will shut down every conservative internet site..including this one.
Every one.
I agree with you 100%.
OR, why is it that not one group of conservatives havent bought into the idea of creating their own search engines and webs?
> Y’all should read the article. <
I tried. All I got was a blank page. And I don’t think that’s the fault of the original poster. I have an older machine. I don’t think it can handle image-heavy web pages.
Anyway, I’m invoking the FR ten-year rule: Once you’ve been here for ten years, you can comment on an article based solely on the headline.
(Okay, I just made that rule up. But I think it’s a good rule.)
Exactly, not sure what he can do, executive orders are executive branch directives. Not sure how this one is justified
That cat is already out of the bag.
On Monday, the Department of Commerce, as directed by President Donald J. Trump's Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, filed a petition to clarify the scope of Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The petition requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarify that Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users' speech to escape civil liability. The petition also requests that the FCC clarify when an online platform curates content in "good faith," and requests transparency requirements on their moderation practices, similar to requirements imposed on broadband service providers under Title I of the Communications Act. President Trump will continue to fight back against unfair, un-American, and politically biased censorship of Americans online.
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship - May 28, 2020
Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.The petition filed today was scheduled and explained in the EO from 60 days ago.Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a "publisher" of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability "protection" to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in "`Good Samaritan' blocking" of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a "forum for a true diversity of political discourse." 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.
[much snippage]
It's basically law enforcement.
How is it enforced? Who with Feds know what the internals look like in Google/Facebook software? It may make a good sound bite, but this is virtually impossible to enforce.
Free Republic does not have protection under under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996. Google does. Your comparison is stupid and uninformed.
GP? Lucy...football.
IMHO
Freerepublic is different from giggles.
Many here joined because we lean right, right, leaningright? =)
Giggles pretend they are neutral - no evil intentions from them at all.
Legitimately? Not sure. But Congress has abdicated its authority, if not legally, in practice. They no longer legislate on most matters, but let the executive and judicial branches fight it out.
> Free Republic does not have protection under under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996. Google does. Your comparison is stupid and uninformed. <
I am quite amazed how some people combine good information with an insult. Don’t you see how that weakens your argument?
I’m not an expert on most things. But I am an expert on quantum mechanics and relativity. I have taught both subjects at the college level. And sometimes folks here will say things about those subjects that are just wrong. Completely wrong. I have never once insulted them. Instead I try to help them see the errors that they have made. I think that’s the best approach.
Have a nice evening.
I absolutely agree with breaking them up, but also consider that just about every potential voter uses them today unlike Freep, the reach Google/Facebook/Twitter has is immense and quite frankly I think it is Google, Facebook and Twitter and not education nor the MSM that has driven so many young adults towards this insane violence against the US today.
The media and education have been leftist long before Google/FB or Twitter ever existed. Why didn’t they riot and freak out on this scale when GW was elected? Because they weren’t fed the level of BS they are being fed today and that BS comes primarily from Google, Facebook and Twitter. The problem with breaking them up though is they got every member of Congress in their back pocket
Nice try Google, Facebook, apple are all publicly traded company’s buy stock and get a say. Instead of wanting uncle sugar to fix it for you.. stand up and fight
“Anti-trust would be a legally cleaner move, for sure.“
.... that’s the next step after the Social Platform CEOs blatantly ignore the order.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.