Posted on 09/22/2018 7:54:45 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
The White House is drafting an executive order to look into the business practices of top tech companies like Google and Facebook, Bloomberg reported Saturday.
A copy of the draft order obtained by Bloomberg directs federal antitrust and law enforcement officials to “thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws.”
Other government agencies are then asked to provide recommendations on how to “protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias.”
Bloomberg noted that no companies are explicitly named in the order, but that it would apply to tech giants like Google, Twitter and Facebook.
President Trump has recently attacked social media companies, accusing them of discriminating against and silencing conservative voices.
Company executives have acknowledged that some policies have mistakenly acted against voices across the political spectrum, but have denied attempting to silence or being biased against conservatives.
Executives from Twitter and Facebook testified before Congress earlier this month. The Justice Department announced the same day that Attorney General Jeff Sessions would meet with state attorneys general to determine if tech companies are “intentionally stifling” free speech on their platforms.
“The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms,” a Justice Department spokesman said at the time.
President Trump has recently attacked social media companies, accusing them of discriminating against and silencing conservative voices.
*****************
These social media sites have basically become like utilities. Imagine if electric companies or water works decided to limit your service because they thought you didn’t share their political views or wanted to influence you in some way that benefits them.
The Sherman Act outlaws “every contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade,” and any “monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy or combination to monopolize.” Long ago, the Supreme Court decided that the Sherman Act does not prohibit every restraint of trade, only those that are unreasonable. For instance, in some sense, an agreement between two individuals to form a partnership restrains trade, but may not do so unreasonably, and thus may be lawful under the antitrust laws. On the other hand, certain acts are considered so harmful to competition that they are almost always illegal. These include plain arrangements among competing individuals or businesses to fix prices, divide markets, or rig bids. These acts are “per se” violations of the Sherman Act; in other words, no defense or justification is allowed.
The penalties for violating the Sherman Act can be severe. Although most enforcement actions are civil, the Sherman Act is also a criminal law, and individuals and businesses that violate it may be prosecuted by the Department of Justice. Criminal prosecutions are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as when competitors fix prices or rig bids. The Sherman Act imposes criminal penalties of up to $100 million for a corporation and $1 million for an individual, along with up to 10 years in prison. Under federal law, the maximum fine may be increased to twice the amount the conspirators gained from the illegal acts or twice the money lost by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is over $100 million.
The Federal Trade Commission Act bans “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” The Supreme Court has said that all violations of the Sherman Act also violate the FTC Act. Thus, although the FTC does not technically enforce the Sherman Act, it can bring cases under the FTC Act against the same kinds of activities that violate the Sherman Act. The FTC Act also reaches other practices that harm competition, but that may not fit neatly into categories of conduct formally prohibited by the Sherman Act. Only the FTC brings cases under the FTC Act.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws
This should be coming from the stupid legislature with new laws not allowing payment processors to deny access when no crimes have been committed and recognizing Facebook and google as defacto monomopolies -
Where’s Ryan and McConnell?!
Where’s Sessions defending and upholding the laws of the US?
Where’s the damn GOP?!
Off making deals with Democrats to sell us out more.
What you said right there lays the foundation for Civil War.
Right now, if Trump is taken out of office by any of these parties, they are guaranteeing an armed march on DC from the people.
Trump is the only guy who is fighting for the people. He doesn’t do exactly what I want him to do, but he has shown time and time again that he is truly interested in improving our lives and our country.
Google is a monopoly and needs to be broken up. Not sure about Facebook, but Google needs to be broken up and regulated.
I don’t understand why Facebook, Twitter and YoUTube are not considered public forums. In the US Supreme Court decision, Marsh V Alabama, a company owned town was held to be public and free speech rights could not be denied. “The owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public..”
also, in Bock V Westminster, the Colorado Supreme Court held that because a mall opened up its common areas to recruiters, town events, etc that it was considered a “latter day public forum” and free speech rights could not be denied.
Some common traits seem to be opening it up for government activity such as political offices or recruiters offices, community events, etc. Facebook, Twitter, YoUTube all have government / political activity, City Channels / pages etc.
I’m in Texas and I don’t understand why Cruz isn’t pushing this and Alex Jones can’t use this legal view to get the Courts involved.
See elsewhere, but bears repeating.
Interesting case law - it does seem to fit the public forum of the internet. On the other hand - does this mean that Liberals can start posting whatever they want on Free Republic?
Not trying to be snarky - but it would seem to go both ways. Perhaps that is why they are trying to go after them with the anti-trust laws, rather than a free speech issue?
But again - I really like your two examples, and will have to try to remember them.
No. There were specific elements involved to be considered a public forum. In the case of the mall, they had government offices set up (Military recruiters) and allowed various community events to be held there. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter do that, as well as allowing cities and politicians to “set up shop”. To compare; Facebook has Marketplace, pages for military, various groups, reunion pages, etc. My city has a YouTube channel and Twitter account. So these really have become the new town square.
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.