I have, yet another, dumb question: Can someone please explain how any President could have this kind of authority, legitimately?
Anti-trust would be a legally cleaner move, for sure.
“I have, yet another, dumb question: Can someone please explain how any President could have this kind of authority, legitimately?”
One of your favorite judges will make sure the President does have the power, you can bet on that.
I’m no lawyer, but besides these tech companies denying people their 1st amendment right, the fact that Google employees were caught on video admitting that Google interferes in the election gives the POTUS a lot of leeway. Either way I’m glad he did it.
> Can someone please explain how any President could have this kind of authority, legitimately? <
I’m not a fan of this at all. If President Trump can regulate Google, then President Biden can regulate Free Republic.
And the free speech argument doesn’t even apply here. The 1A was meant to protect you from government censorship, not from some company’s censorship.
If Google, etc. are such a problem, use the anti-monopoly laws to break them up.
For the umpteenth time, he doesn't. A judge will strike it down. The media will scream about a subject they would normally try to bury, for a couple of weeks, thereby raising the issue to the public at large. There is no such thing as bad publicity. Most Freepers have figured out President Trump's method of endrunning the MSM's habit of censorship via blackout of certain subjects.
Treat them as a public utility
“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.
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.
Exactly, not sure what he can do, executive orders are executive branch directives. Not sure how this one is justified
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.
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.
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.
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.
Marsh v. Alabama
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
President Trump has a reasonable argument that because the websites are open to the general public though owned by a private company. The company may not abridge the Free Speech rights of the users.
This is likely a prelude to removing protections these companies have enjoyed and treating them like publishers. If they admit they are not the public square and can exercise control over the content they would be admitting they are publishers. They don't want that so it forces the companies' hand so to speak. It also gets the message out to the general public that they are likely getting information that's filtered by these companies. The websites they control are not the free expression sites they claim to be.