Posted on 07/29/2020 5:09:01 PM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda
HUGE! Trump White House Implements Executive Order on Online Censorship: Prevents Tech Giants from Altering Users’ Free Speech – Demands Transparency of Moderation Practices
This Is Big!
On Wednesday Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sundar Pichai and Apple’s Tim Cook testified before Congress in the House Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust.
Since 2016 and the election of Donald Trump the tech giants have been censoring and banning conservative voices online. The Gateway Pundit has been a huge target of these liberal tech giants.
Of course, the CEOs dismissed allegations that they are targeting and censoring conservative users despite ALL of the evidence to the contrary.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Did you read the May 28 EO? Read that.
I think the planned enforcement is a three step process. EO, Agency rulemaking, court action seeking a court order, details of which will be designed to get the content regulator to comply with the rule.
There may be fines, but I don't think those would be effective.
A good part of all this is to raise public awareness that the sources of informtion are filtered agitprop and unreliable. Some Americans like freedom of the press. Ironically, the press does not ;-)
Yep, that’s why I didn’t leave any comment after posting this article. I’ll believe it when I see it. Freakin 4 years and these enemies of the USA and freedom so far are batting 1000, anyone even remotely connected to Trump from the paper boy on up gets locked up for even sneezing the wrong way, meanwhile Barr and Trump can’t even hand out a parking ticket for AN ATTEMPTED COUP
You’re new to this subject?
The ‘muh company’ ship sailed long ago.
Section 230 provides that one can either be a platform, which is an e-kiosk where only the lightest control is permitted (explicitly illegal acts, many of which by the way pass unscathed through the big social media platforms); or one can be a publisher, which allows control as one wishes but also liability for content.
This is only natural; if there’s an ad stapled to a telephone pole, it’s not AT&T’s fault if the lawn service advertised thereon is lousy or the religious study group is fake.
Likewise if you’re CNN or Breitbart, if you publish an article full of libel, you can (will) get sued.
Both can apply: If I take my Azure-hosted blog and advertise something illegal, I can get in trouble for it (publisher) but it’s not Microsoft’s fault for renting me a server.
None of this is at all at odds with private enterprise; nobody can be on both sides of the law at once.
These guys long ago became publishers and claim they’re not; they censor and ban us, doctors, even the President, and let riot organizers go and grossly illegal content too.
They’re absolutely “the government” in that they and the Dems collude if not conspire, and both do the will of China; and every time someone *defends* them on the grounds that they’re somehow free (ha) enterprise Xi is grinning.
No, the appropriate law to exercise, if we’re going to hold them accountable rather than force them open, would be criminal suits for every drug buy, illicit sale, underage picture, call for violence or insurrection or riot, and civil lawsuits for everyone who’s been banned, shadowbanned, or otherwise restricted where the cause wasn’t crystal clear and enforced strictly according to the terms of service absolutely equally to all.
If the RATS ever have the chance they’d do it and wouldn’t care what anyone thought. Some black robe would back them up.
Thanks for the info. And now a few questions. If you’re a platform, are you saying that you cannot control content on your own site (except for explicitly illegal things)?
And what happens if you tried? Would that make you a publisher?
Some folks never miss an opportunity to be a jerk.
IMHO, the former Constitution said something about freedom of speech and the President swore to uphold that Constitution...
Does the Constitution specify as to how free speech should be protected? Don't think so...
The way I read it, the EO simply clarified existing law.
I’m not sure that’s what the Founders had in mind.
If the electric utilities started to cut off power to conservative customers only, that would be a problem. It’s somewhat similar when giant information monopolies cut off free speech and limit the flow of information from conservative customers.
“Your comparison is stupid and uninformed.”
Rude.
This is for show. It actually accomplishes nothing. Big tech can ignore it with impunity. There is no force of law.
I love the spirit within Trump, but I just realized - the Presidential EO has replaced congress. But I also realize, it’s congresses fault for not dealing with problems the way they should. Now the law goes EO- Courts - Law. Instead of Congress - Courts - Law.
Would you believe the raw text of Section 230 is on p.3 of a Bing search? The first two pages are articles ‘explaining’ what one ought to think about it. P.1 on DuckDuckGo, which is kinda the point of all this; even a simple search is skewed to produce results supporting the C-suite’s desired thoughts.
Here’s a link. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
another.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mr2651/ecommerce3/2nd/statutes/CommunicationsDecencyAct.pdf
Clearly, and in any article not published in the Age of Cancel, this section is intended to promote free discussion by inhibiting liability to services.
The abuse lies in that companies aligned with DNC and PRC to quash free speech have gone ahead to do so one-sidedly offering only the barest fig leaf of “otherwise objectionable” to ban anything not aligned with the wokest insanity.
That is the issue. The tech companies are NOT in compliance with the law. They can either “curate content” and be legally responsible for the content...and be considered an editor. Very minor exceptions for actual threats or slander, but not carte blanche. Or they can be a conduit for a forum and be considered like a publisher where the content is the responsibility of the author.
If they are sued for editing content, they would be open to revealing WHY they edited content, to include malice and negligence. IIRC the law is already there...but they give tons literally) of money to the politicians, so they claim the exemption without a whimper from the politicians.
DK
No matter what is done, it will be slow and bureaucratic.
Matt Gaetz speaking on Hannity had a good point, Congress won’t do anything, Congress is bought off by the tech giants.
Cases are not the sort that gets a jury - but I hear you, the judges are no good anyway.
Right on the money with your last point. The narrative machine has always been and will always be inherently dishonest. Not sure how to get people to abandon healthy distrust. As critters, people really are sheep or lemming-like.
“Google is a private company.”
No. It. Isn’t.
I don’t know why FReepers keep repeating this falsehood.
Google is a PUBLIC company. Big difference.
A publicly traded company (i.e. offers shares for sale to the public) cannot, under federal law, contribute to, or try to influence, federal elections:
https://transition.fec.gov/pages/brochures/fecfeca.shtml#Contribution_Limits
This is regulated under 52 U.S. Code 30118.
Here are more specific details and definitions...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30118
Note the definitions of “contributions” and “expenditures”. For this section and section 79l(h) of title 15, these include “any services, or anything of value”.
These social media companies are engaging in organized crime, criminal racketeering, criminal fraud, and money laundering. Allowing employees to use their company-paid time to engage in federal election activities is criminal. Management who knowingly permit this should be criminally charged. Using these resources illegally also means the CEO and other executives are willfully neglecting their fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders and knowingly putting these investments at risk. They should go to prison for a long time.
NONE of these things apply to a privately held company such as Free Republic.
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.
I have one improvement: make it retroactive to 2015
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.