Posted on 05/27/2020 11:33:29 PM PDT by Helicondelta
A draft of an executive order President Trump is expected to sign on Thursday would seek to limit the broad legal protection that federal law currently provides social-media and other online platforms, according to people familiar with the draft.
The draft order would make it easier for federal regulators to hold companies such as Twitter and Facebook liable for curbing users’ speech, for example by suspending their accounts or deleting their posts, the people said.
The draft isn’t yet completed and is subject to change, the people said. It comes after Twitter on Tuesday moved for the first time to apply a fact-checking notice to tweets by the president on the subject of voter fraud. Mr. Trump on Tuesday accused the company of stifling free speech and vowed to take action.
The executive order would mark the Trump administration’s most aggressive effort to take action against social-media companies, which the president has threatened to do for years. The order would also likely be challenged in court, experts said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
I look forward to the EO countering the Lawfare in the courts.
Laura Loomer’s lawsuit failed same day decision to drop the EO.
Maybe the EO will facilitate a flood of RICO lawsuits
Is falsifying information, misinformation, disinformation, and outright propaganda not considered sedition when it relates to trying to overturn our government? Joseph Goebbels would be proud of our media, both social and “news”. This is exactly how the Germans deceived the people during WWII. Shut down FB and Twitter. Don’t give them any privileged exemptions. Let the law suits begin!
I personally think social media sites have harmed out society and turning the users into addicted zombies.
Precisely. They lobbied to gain the protection of a common carrier, making them not liable for patron's comments. They then proceeded to monitor those same comments they sought relief against, asserting the privilege of a private platform. They cannot be both public and private, asserting the protections of both.
“But they should be treated as common carriers, like the phone companies.”
The law does not treat them that way now, and it’s unlikely to do so in the future.
They are nothing like the phone companies. And any attempt to regulate them as such is doomed to fail.
They are more like ABC or NYT. They are now publishers of content.
Even though they still enjoy Section 230 protections by law, even when they “moderate” and “curate” their forums.
While an EO can nibble around the edges and make life more uncomfortable for them, it cannot overturn that law.
And this is as important to the left as USSC judges. It’s a hill they will die on. Any change to that law will require a Trump presidency and Republican control of both houses of Congress. Big majorities at that.
Meanwhile, Jack secretly met twice with Google and begged them to buy Twitter: 'see, I'm virtue signaling by cracking down on conservatives, just imagine what you can do once you buy it', but at the time Google didn't want the outlet -- having been burned by their awful collapse of Google+ -- and they thought Cankles was going to win and regulate conservatives from the top-down, rather than force the social media conglomerates to do so. Finally, as with all things capitalist, Jack's asking price was too high (and he wanted on Google's Executive Board).
This is simply a repeat of the 2016 pattern. He wants Google to buy Twitter.
If this EO doesn't actually cost Jack his fortune, then he doesn't care. Trump needs to punish Jack directly, reveal his phone calls, his contacts, his mess of a personal life.
wow this ^&(# is getting real FINALLY!!!
“My solution was to say to hell with them and not visit the sites anymore.“
Me too.
But to answer your original question - No, a future Democrat President could not use this same rationale against FR.
The difference is that FR and other forums or outlets which provide commentary and editorial opinions are already not exempted from regulation as “common carriers”. So this would take nothing away from FR.
Twitter and FB claim to be “common carriers“ - they claim to be serving as the “telephone lines“ over which people communicate, and therefore not liable for what gets said’ you whom.
But by “fact checking“ the President’s tweets, Twitter is trying to have it both ways. They want to be protected as “common carriers” but yet they wish to weigh in on the content. FB is playing it smarter by having Zuckerberg go out and say Facebook shouldn’t attempt to evaluate what is true or not true, or what is “right“ or “wrong”. But FB is in violation of common carrier regs as well - the President is making them choose -
FB has already chosen, so No, this could not come around and bite FR in the ass.
What do Social Media platforms think of big active government now? :)
Still I can see a future Democrat administration trying to claim the FR too is a common carrier due to the fact we have local chapters who organize political rallies as well as other forms of political activism. I can imagine we agree that this argument would be preposterous. Yet if they bring to court and argue in front of some moron Obama appointed judge (because they will judge shop), anything can happen. I don't mean to sound like a pessimist but I really don't trust these people.
Right - I trust them about as far as I can throw them
They will lie, cheat, twist, etc..
Just saying Trump is right to push back and show them they can’t have it both ways.
Agree, 100%.
And I'm waiting for AT&T to break into my phone line and tell me "STOP!.. You can't say THAT!"
Some time ago, didn’t Twitter require President Trump to NOT delete the nasty comments that moonbats posted on his Twitter page?
But Twitter did NOT require the same of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, or any other liberal politician.
How is that allowed? Two-sets of rules?
You sent shivers down my spine when you said, “future Democrat administration.”
The RATS going after FreeRepublic would be the least of the calamities these RAT bastards would unleash on the country.
We should be applauding Trump’s move, which would move in a direction toward less regulation.
The idea that they should be treated as common carriers, hence greater regulation, is offensive to be completely honest.
Trump is doing the right thing here. Section 230 is highly flawed and needs to be permanently retired or clarified so that these online social media are forced to pick being a platform, or being a publisher, in a very visible and undeniable way. Right now they try having both and its always a question. That is the problem.
Section 230 is the problem. Conservatives face censorship specifically because of the weaknesses of section 230.
This isn’t big government.
Turning them into common carriers or doing anti-trust would be big government.
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.