Social media and the 1st Amendment (Formerly: Trump seeks to punish Twitter) (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    superchuck500

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    4,817
    Reaction score
    12,185
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Despite Twitter historically granting Trump far more latitude with violations of Twitter terms of service than average members would get, a recent tagging of a Trump tweet with Twitter's fact-checking tool enraged the president. He announced yesterday that he will take retribution via executive order seeking to remove statutory legal protections in place for social media companies, and instructing his executive agencies (the FCC an DOJ) to formulate plans to take legal action against social media companies for "political bias."

    A draft of the order has been released . . . and it is troubling to say the least.

    According to analysis, the order will "reinterpret" a key provision of the Communications Decency Act (Sec. 230) that previously protected social media companies for responsibility for the content on their sites. That section works by declaring that social media companies are not "publishers" of the content posted by third-party account holders (members) - and it is statutory. The Trump order apparently also instructs the FCC to create regulations to make this new "interpretation" of Sec. 230 actionable against social media companies. In addition, the order apparently instructs the FTC (which is not an executive agency) to report to Congress on "political bias" in social media - and to consider using the reinterpreted Section 230 to bring actions against social media companies for political bias.

    Apparently the order also instructs DOJ to work with state AGs to determine what state laws may be used against social media companies for political bias.

    So yep, a Republican president is attempting to restructure the statutory framework that has allowed American social media companies - which are private business by the way - to grow into corporate giants without having to be answerable in court for the content posted by their members. And will do so based on the notion that private business should be held to some standard of political neutrality.

    Further legal analysis will be needed, but it seems highly suspect on several important grounds (including the fact that Section 230 is statutory and is very explicit - it's not subject to rewrite by executive order). More importantly this idea that "political bias" can be defined and made actionable by federal agencies against private companies seems a patent violation of the First Amendment.



     
    Last edited:
    Twitter has posted a thread explaining why they have restricted the story from the NY Post

     
    MT15 said:
    Twitter has posted a thread explaining why they have restricted the story from the NY Post

    Click to expand...


    So basically they are saying it’s not the content of the article but the pictures and screenshots of emails that violate their hacked materials policy. That makes sense. Make a copy of the story without the images and they should be good?
     
    JimEverett said:


    This is interesting to me.

    I am not talking about the actual story the Post published or whether it is mostly true or false or whether it is good reporting or not, etc. But why is Twitter acting like news police? This seems to go against the spirit and the letter of the exemption that they receive from the federal government - an exemption the Post does not receive.
    Click to expand...

    There are a few stories here as far as I can see:
    1) A private citizen stole information from another private citizen and gave it to Giuliani who knowing accepted stolen info. Giuliani provided this for public release despite knowing/suspecting there was an ongoing FBI investigation.
    2) Twitter can shut down a story and presidential communications. Twitter and similar “non-media” e-companies are going to get treated as publishers soon. Both sides will be calling for this given their moderation and content suggestion.
    3) Hunter Biden smokes crack and records sex acts.
    4) Laws against hacked/stolen personal information need to change.
     
    B4YOU said:
    4) Laws against hacked/stolen personal information need to change.
    Click to expand...

    Does this fall into that category? If it was dropped off for repair and nobody came back to get it does it qualify as hacked or stolen?

    I don't know the law, but I'm not sure this falls in the hacked or stolen category.
     
    I think that “story” is pretty unbelievable is the issue. So there is some question about how the material was obtained.

    The store owner has twenty different versions of how he came to be in possession of the material and several different versions of how it got to Rudy. None of which actually check out.
     
    Saint by the Bay said:
    Does this fall into that category? If it was dropped off for repair and nobody came back to get it does it qualify as hacked or stolen?

    I don't know the law, but I'm not sure this falls in the hacked or stolen category.
    Click to expand...
    The shop owner made a copy of the data and then gave it to Rudy Giuliani’s attorney and the FBI per the story. The copying for back-up purposes is legit. The turning over to FBI due to believing a crime has been committed is legit. Giving it to Giuliano’s attorney is going cost him everything he owns. This isn’t hacked data but willful distribution of data he was entrusted with. This isn’t a data breach and pay a fine. This is willful theft and dissemination which should lead to both criminal and civil actions, but I’m no lawyer.
     
    B4YOU said:
    There are a few stories here as far as I can see:
    1) A private citizen stole information from another private citizen and gave it to Giuliani who knowing accepted stolen info. Giuliani provided this for public release despite knowing/suspecting there was an ongoing FBI investigation.
    2) Twitter can shut down a story and presidential communications. Twitter and similar “non-media” e-companies are going to get treated as publishers soon. Both sides will be calling for this given their moderation and content suggestion.
    3) Hunter Biden smokes crack and records sex acts.
    4) Laws against hacked/stolen personal information need to change.
    Click to expand...
    The problem with what Twitter is doing - at least one problem - is that it opens itself up to charges of bias while it maintains government protection. While I think the way and, ultimately, reasons for Trump lashing out at Twitter is motivationally wrong, from a substance standpoint it makes some sense. And you do not have to buy into the idea that Twitter is some ideologically opposed to conservatives to think that way.

    As far as ill-gotten-information - when the NTY or WaPost publishes what was classified information - that information is was attained via an illegal act (by the source, not the publisher). Or take the NYT story of Trump's taxes - those taxes had to be obtained illegally, right? [I really don't know the specifics of how that info was obtained, so it is an honest question]. I don't think it serves a free press to censor such information given how it is obtained, although it is certainly fine for a publisher to refuse to publish it.
    But Twitter isn't a publisher and receives protections that publishers do not receive.

    Your number 2 is, I think sadly, becoming likely. Although I have no idea how Twitter or Facebook or anything like those - including this board - could survive without that protection.
     
    samiam5211 said:
    Hopefully it leads to legislation that classifies and regulates social media/platforms as a separate type of entity.

    There needs to be some type of control over what these companies can do, and right now we have none. Hopefully we can figure out a way to do it that doesn’t get overturned by the courts.
    Click to expand...
    I think what is likely to happen is that we keep the protections for these platforms but allow them to act in their market interests. In other words, treat them essentially like newsstands where the platform decides what publications it is going to allow, and then it deals with the public's reactions to those decisions.
     
    JimEverett said:
    The problem with what Twitter is doing - at least one problem - is that it opens itself up to charges of bias while it maintains government protection. While I think the way and, ultimately, reasons for Trump lashing out at Twitter is motivationally wrong, from a substance standpoint it makes some sense. And you do not have to buy into the idea that Twitter is some ideologically opposed to conservatives to think that way.

    As far as ill-gotten-information - when the NTY or WaPost publishes what was classified information - that information is was attained via an illegal act (by the source, not the publisher). Or take the NYT story of Trump's taxes - those taxes had to be obtained illegally, right? [I really don't know the specifics of how that info was obtained, so it is an honest question]. I don't think it serves a free press to censor such information given how it is obtained, although it is certainly fine for a publisher to refuse to publish it.
    But Twitter isn't a publisher and receives protections that publishers do not receive.

    Your number 2 is, I think sadly, becoming likely. Although I have no idea how Twitter or Facebook or anything like those - including this board - could survive without that protection.
    Click to expand...

    Just an FYI for those who might not know. If the data and content are classified and illegally leaked, it still remains classified material. Leakage doesn't mean it's no longer classified. If the data/documents are classified, any transmission or displaying it can cause major legal issues for whoever transmits it.
     
    B4YOU said:
    The shop owner made a copy of the data and then gave it to Rudy Giuliani’s attorney and the FBI per the story. The copying for back-up purposes is legit. The turning over to FBI due to believing a crime has been committed is legit. Giving it to Giuliano’s attorney is going cost him everything he owns. This isn’t hacked data but willful distribution of data he was entrusted with. This isn’t a data breach and pay a fine. This is willful theft and dissemination which should lead to both criminal and civil actions, but I’m no lawyer.
    Click to expand...

    Actually, if the information he copied was classified, it's illegal to copy it unless he has security clearance to view the content in question. I doubt he had the clearance or need to know, therefore copying it would a no no. The rest is spot on though.
     
    I don’t think anyone has suggested there was classified material on the laptop, have they? since it was alleged to be Hunter’s laptop there almost certainly would not be anything classified on it.

    I haven’t read the original story, but from commentary I think the “smoking gun” was merely an email from Hunter to someone in Ukraine that mentioned he might arrange a meeting with his father. And then some salacious material involving Hunter.

    But, we need to not take the story that this laptop was dropped off at a repair shop and then never picked up seriously. I feel like people are just accepting that and there is really no reason to believe that is the case. We simply don’t know how this information was obtained nor do we know if it is completely manufactured. Rudy just isn’t a reliable source and the shop owner is not either. Nobody on the Post staff checked out the story, shocker, I know.
     
    What I find amusing is that the same people who were unswayed by the evidence in Trump's impeachment are losing their minds over this "smoking gun" e-mail.
     
    JimEverett said:
    I think what is likely to happen is that we keep the protections for these platforms but allow them to act in their market interests. In other words, treat them essentially like newsstands where the platform decides what publications it is going to allow, and then it deals with the public's reactions to those decisions.
    Click to expand...
    I think the news stand idea works for some formats. YouTube compensating content creators and selling ads is no different from a media company. Facebook and Twitter may say every user gets a personal news stand, but they are arguably exercising editorial control over specific content within the media they offer.

    Infowars still gets 1M page views per day even after being kicked off the “e-media“ giants. What do you do with 1000s Alex Joneses with 10-100 thousand daily viewers each?
     
    brandon said:
    NYT claims they got the taxes legally.
    Click to expand...
    That's not accurate. The NYT only said that the people who obtained Trump's taxes had legal access to them. Trump's taxes were Illegally leaked to the NYTs.

    I'm so surprised that Twitter didn't apply their policy to Trump's tax returns.

    All of the information The Times obtained was provided by sources with legal access to it. While most of the tax data has not previously been made public, The Times was able to verify portions of it by comparing it with publicly available information and confidential records previously obtained by The Times.
    www.nytimes.com

    Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance (Published 2020)

    The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.
    www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
     
    MT15 said:
    The pretty strong indication is that the story is completely made up Russian disinformation from Rudy and Bannon. I would imagine that is the reason that Twitter suddenly got the yips.

    I think they are trying to verify if the material is legitimate in any way. If It is legitimate, which is highly doubtful, it is stolen, so not sure how that is looked at by Twitter either.
    Click to expand...
    The same people who speculated for years about a supposed pee tape are the same people who don't want anyone to read the NY Post article.

    The majority counsel for the Democrats during the impeachment:
    20201014_220429.jpg

    20201014_220431.jpg
     
    SaintForLife said:
    That's not accurate. The NYT only said that the people who obtained Trump's taxes had legal access to them. Trump's taxes were Illegally leaked to the NYTs.

    I'm so surprised that Twitter didn't apply their policy to Trump's tax returns.

    All of the information The Times obtained was provided by sources with legal access to it. While most of the tax data has not previously been made public, The Times was able to verify portions of it by comparing it with publicly available information and confidential records previously obtained by The Times.
    www.nytimes.com

    Trump’s Taxes Show Chronic Losses and Years of Income Tax Avoidance (Published 2020)

    The Times obtained Donald Trump’s tax information extending over more than two decades, revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle and hundreds of millions in debt coming due.
    www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
    Click to expand...
    It seems like double standards. However, these companies number one mission is to make money. Twitter isn’t doing anything that is illegal. They just go with the flow. IMHO, they should just announce that they endorse Biden. 40% of the population will announce that they are going to boycott Twitter if that happens. However, they will boycott Twitter exactly the same way that they boycott the NFL.
     
    MT15 said:
    Twitter has posted a thread explaining why they have restricted the story from the NY Post

    Click to expand...

    I am not sure I buy that. It makes some degree of sense on its face, BUT - I think the key is to make the distinction between information about a public figure vs. a non-public one. I think, for instance, Twitter would and should link to a piece containing an illegally-gotten- video or a picture of Trump smoking crack and/oer the mayor of Washington DC smoking crack. Me smoking crack? - not so much.
    Now, is Hunter Biden on that same level - or public enough (perhaps "in the public interest" enough) to think its newsworthy?

    On its own - the son, even the adult son, of the VP/former VP could be legitimately censored imo. But with the questions of access and the political story behind all this makes me think censoring it is too much of a "political" decision, or at least too much of an appearance of one.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom