Law Trump issues EO to reclassify social media as publishers, legally liable for user content

[aitkenmike]

good

Obviously poor old (twitter verified-blue tick granted by evil twitter) Ryan isn't conservative enough, and needs to work on being extra conservative, as twitter hasn't yet censored him.

Try harder Ryan, you big RINO you.

 

[Butz2nutz]

Trump just going full cuck here

 

[BarryDillon]

good

Just like Fox News is held liable for censoring leftist voices.

Oh, wait...

 

[Overtures]

We need some clarity here. What actually does this do?


Also Twitter being a publisher means what?

 

[Quipling]

Flanked by Attorney General Bill Barr, President Trump signed an executive order in the Oval Office on Thursday that calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) to remove statutory liability protections and cut federal funding for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct.

The president's order came just two days after Twitter took the unprecedented step of slapping a "misleading" warning label on two of Trump's tweets concerning the fraud risks of nationwide mail-in balloting. The move immediately backfired: Experts disputed that Trump's tweet was actually misleading, in part because mail-in balloting has been linked to ongoing fraud; Twitter's fact-check itself contained false statements; and Twitter failed to apply the standard of review to other users.

At Thursday's signing ceremony, Trump called the fact-check "egregious," and held up a photo of Twitter executive Yoel Roth, who heads up the site's fact-checking and rules-making operation. Fox News reported on Wednesday that Roth has mocked Trump supporters, called Trump's team "ACTUAL NAZIS," slammed "scary trannies" in New York City, and called GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a "bag of farts." (In a statement, Twitter did not dispute Fox News' reporting, but called it "unfortunate.")

"My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censoring any political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield," the president said.

Continue reading

What is Section 230?

The Communications Decency Act was established as Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, right as the internet was growing and expanding amid the first big tech boom of the 1990s. It was initially created to regulate pornographic material on the internet.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) created Section 230 within the Communications Decency Act to protect speech on the internet.

Long before social networking, Section 230 was meant to cover sites like news outlets with comment sections, online forums, and other websites where people could contribute their thoughts. Without Section 230, most of the sites we use today — including Google and Facebook — would not exist as we know them.

“It was very relevant 20 years ago for certain websites to happen,” said Zohar Levkovitz, CEO of anti online toxicity company L1ght.

What protections does it provide?

Section 230 says: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Continue reading

Social media companies have been abusing this loophole for too long. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a beginning (maybe the beginning of the end for Twitter).
Those companies are abusing their power to manipulate our perception of reality, effectively manufacturing consent.
Federal legislation is being prepared at the moment.

At the outset, I see three problems. First, executive orders generally have to work within the legislative framework. As stated, this executive order is intended to subvert the legislative purpose in question, both by removing a statutory protection and by redirecting federal funding. That conflict with the underlying legislation creates room for a viable challenge.

Second, he is calling for this to be enacted through regulatory rule-making. Under the apa, this is a multi-month process even without challenges and is subject to congressional review. It's unlikely to get very far in a meaningful period of time - I've seen controversial rules get stuck for years.

Third, the general context in which the order was passed also causes issues and may open a first amendment challenge by painting it as retaliatory.

no. saying that Tim Pool doesn't have a legal background so you won't watch, while you engage in political discussion on an MMA website is just funny.

you have eyes and ears. watch it.

I'd rather spend my time chatting on sherdog than spend it watching Tim pool. If you aren't interested in discussing, cool. I'll chat with folks who are.

@Hadron90
I saw your Marsh citation. That's the clearest constitutional approach, but the Marsh decision was about a municipality run by a corporation that was empowered by state law to run the town. I think that's made clear a few pages before the bit you quoted, but I haven't read it since February.

Subsequent decisions by the supreme court have limited Marsh to cases in which a company is essentially a state actor. Every federal court addressing those issues in the context of internet companies has relied on those decisions in holding that Marsh is not applicable.

I’m all for going after social media censorship but I’m not convinced this will be an effective approach. Seems like it would incentivize more censorship, not less.

Bingo. Making more companies liable for user-generated content will result in those companies being more proactive in censoring that content in an effort to avoid liability.

For example, sherdog moderators sometimes delete posts containing political content. That's enough to trigger the "no liability shield" rule Trump is proposing. Sherdog also has posts glorifying violence. If a sherdog user were to engage in violent activity, which has happened (or engage in some other sort of liability generating activity), a reasonably clever lawyer could tie that to sherdog and pull crave/evolve media into a nasty lawsuit. Instead of being a modest source of revenue, the forums and comment sections become a massive source of liability.

 

[floivanus]

Orange man bad

 

[JonnyBonesPharmacist]

Watching this administration circle the toilet is satisfying, but November can't come fast enough to get this clown out of office.

They're going to have to power wash the Lincoln bedroom to get the Burger King smell out.

LMAO....have you seen the Democratic senile candidate? Hes gonna make a great leader

 

[Holic]

Again, this is really simple...this, in the end, would come down on users...not Twitter.

How? When? This EO doesn't overwrite the 1st amendment...

 

[floivanus]

We need some clarity here. What actually does this do?


Also Twitter being a publisher means what?

As a platform, any and all user content is not the responsibility of twitter, they have no legal liability for slander, libel, things that are illegal, CP, human trafficking, drug deals, etc.

As a publisher, they lose section 230 protections, and can be held accountable for content on their site, section 230 protections were meant for a “hands off” approach to internet content

 

[aitkenmike]

We need some clarity here. What actually does this do?


Also Twitter being a publisher means what?

Nothing, it's bullshit virtue signalling as it is completely unenforceable. It's total theater, and the rubes and Trumpers are lapping it up.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

If twitter becomes more liable for their content, you can bet you sweet ass that they will pay that liability forward to their users. You don't have to be able to think that far ahead to realize there is no way in holy hell that Twitter is going to take the brunt of this.

Sure. Seems smart of Twitter to either do something like what you are saying or to put forward a neutral platform to escape liability.

 

[Fawlty]

Trump essentially just said that everything fucked up he says on Twitter is Twitter's fault. That's kinda funny.

 

[TUFNewb]

section 230 protections were meant for a “hands off” approach to internet content

They were not though.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

It is specifically worded to empower service providers to use their discretion when deciding what is allowed.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

No requirement of political neutrality is present in the current law.

 

[Overtures]

As a platform, any and all user content is not the responsibility of twitter, they have no legal liability for slander, libel, things that are illegal, CP, human trafficking, drug deals, etc.

As a publisher, they lose section 230 protections, and can be held accountable for content on their site, section 230 protections were meant for a “hands off” approach to internet content

how does that solve anything? Seems the first option allows more freedom

 

[James Bomb]

LMAO....have you seen the Democratic senile candidate? Hes gonna make a great leader

Worse than Trump, the Modern WOAT President?

Nodog.jpg

 

[Mamba Mentality]

this is gonna open his fat ass up to getting sued for posting libelous nonsense all day on Twitter.

Also, none of this is going to matter any time soon. This will be bogged down in litigation for years as the tech companies aren't going to lie down over this.

Trump is a snowflake and this is nothing more than his childish revenge for getting bitch slapped for lying.

Not sure why Twitter decided to take a stand now...he's been outright lying on Twitter for years.

Joe Scarborough should sue his fat ass, the rest of it I don't really care about.

and LOL at "misleading warning label"...the fat ass lied and got called out for lying, which he constantly does.

TDS

 

[ocfightfan]

I would prefer that they be platforms. Just drop the Orwellian censorship and leftist bias.

 

[shockaholic12]

So any site that moderates what users communicate via their site is a publisher and liable?

I knew conservatives were thinned-skinned but damn, you bitches really outdid yourself this time.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

this is gonna open his fat ass up to getting sued for posting libelous nonsense all day on Twitter.

Also, none of this is going to matter any time soon. This will be bogged down in litigation for years as the tech companies aren't going to lie down over this.

Trump is a snowflake and this is nothing more than his childish revenge for getting bitch slapped for lying.

Not sure why Twitter decided to take a stand now...he's been outright lying on Twitter for years.

Joe Scarborough should sue his fat ass, the rest of it I don't really care about.

and LOL at "misleading warning label"...the fat ass lied and got called out for lying, which he constantly does.

Would like but now I can't like.

 

[shockaholic12]

TDS

Out of all things going down right now you guys got your feelings hurt by twitter and are in here begging the government to come protect you from them. You look like that bitch in central park who called the cops on the bird watcher.