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

[superchuck500]

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.

 

[DaveXA]

Thomas being a supreme court justice is a slap in the face to everything that Thurgood Marshall stood for and represented. The man doesn't deserve to benefit from Marshall being the first. I'd rather Marshall be "the only" than for Thomas to continue shirtting on Marshall's legacy.

Is that based on his court opinions or something he said? Did he ever actually badmouth Marshall?

 

[Saintamaniac]

Is that based on his court opinions or something he said? Did he ever actually badmouth Marshall?

It's my personal opinion as a black man on Thomas, a man who, IMO, can't hold Marshall's jockstrap.

 

[DaveXA]

It's my personal opinion as a black man on Thomas, a man who, IMO, can't hold Marshall's jockstrap.

Fair enough. Just was wondering where it was coming from.

 

[superchuck500]

Florida continues to lead the way on attempting state control of social media and other internet content. It’s not going to go well in court and will potentially harm Florida’s ongoing effort to bring more tech business to the state.

https://www.cato.org/blog/florida-social-media-bill-overshadows-tech-week

 

[MT15]

The little bit I’ve read about it, sounds like this law has a snowball’s chance of actually going into effect. It seems to be universally panned as just a terrible law.

 

[superchuck500]

So the stable genius has filed three class action suits on the basis of "First Amendment Violation" against Facebook, Twitter, and Google. This is such a steaming pile of garbage - which isn't surprising giving how much other steaming garbage he has filed in the course of the last year.

At some point, does anyone stop and think, "man, this guy is so sure of himself but his theories never hold any water where substance actually matters - like in court"?

Nah, they just blame the judges as part of deep state.

 

[JRad]

So the stable genius has filed three class action suits on the basis of "First Amendment Violation" against Facebook, Twitter, and Google. This is such a steaming pile of garbage - which isn't surprising giving how much other steaming garbage he has filed in the course of the last year.

At some point, does anyone stop and think, "man, this guy is so sure of himself but his theories never hold any water where substance actually matters - like in court"?

Nah, they just blame the judges as part of deep state.

I can’t figure out how much of this is red meat, and how much is this Trump thinking Jack Dorsey is sitting at a computer literally deleting posts.

 

[Booker]

Well this could get interesting…

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

It'll probably get thrown out before he has to do that. And he knows it. That way he can continue on with "they are all against me" victim role...

 

[MT15]

He will withdraw before discovery. Meanwhile he is doing serious fundraising off of it.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Can the plaintiffs countersue and force him to continue and not withdraw?

 

[superchuck500]

The defendants don’t want to get to discovery. They have options including motions to dismiss for failing to state a viable claim or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and options for venue changes under the terms of service.

They’re probably going to first seek dismissal (or dismissal after changing venue). They have more interest in that than discovery (which goes both ways).

 

[Optimus Prime]

Taking a cue from the NRA
====================

Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth offered a fresh defense of the company’s role in the spread of misinformation during an interview with Axios that aired Sunday. If you have a problem with users believing misleading covid-19 content, Bosworth said, “you have an issue with those people,” not Facebook.

The remarks, which drew immediate backlash, are the latest example of the tech giant taking a defiant tone in the face of criticisms over its safety practices, rather than offering apologies as it did in the wake of prior scandals.

“Mr. Bosworth seems to be saying the quiet part out loud: that Facebook apparently doesn’t see itself as responsible for spreading the misinformation and disinformation that their company profits off of,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) told The Technology 202.

But the argument also bore a striking resemblance to timeworn logic offered in defense of a wholly different industry: the “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” catchphrase, often deployed by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

While the products themselves are poles apart, leaders from both industries have used similar rationales when discussing the responsibility they bear when their tools cause harm. In the case of online misinformation, Bosworth argued, that burden ultimately falls on users.

“Individual humans are the ones who choose to believe or not believe a thing. They are the ones who choose to share or not share a thing,” said Bosworth, who next year will become chief technology officer for Facebook parent company Meta.........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[zztop]

kind of related, since it seems twitter argued 1st amendment in trying to get out of handing over Trump's twitter correspondence :

"Although the company did not question the validity of the search warrant, it asserted that the nondisclosure order was facially invalid under the First Amendment," the appeals court wrote in their opinion. "Twitter informed the government that it would not comply with the warrant until the district court assessed the legality of the nondisclosure order."

Special counsel obtained Trump DMs despite ‘momentous’ bid by Twitter to delay, unsealed filings show

Judge Beryl Howell lit into Twitter for taking steps to give Donald Trump advance notice about the search warrant.

www.politico.com

Howell lit into Twitter for taking “extraordinary” and apparently unprecedented steps to give Trump advance notice about the search warrant — despite prosecutors’ warnings, backed by unspecified evidence, that notifying Trump could cause grave damage to their investigation.

 

[MT15]

kind of related, since it seems twitter argued 1st amendment in trying to get out of handing over Trump's twitter correspondence :

"Although the company did not question the validity of the search warrant, it asserted that the nondisclosure order was facially invalid under the First Amendment," the appeals court wrote in their opinion. "Twitter informed the government that it would not comply with the warrant until the district court assessed the legality of the nondisclosure order."

Special counsel obtained Trump DMs despite ‘momentous’ bid by Twitter to delay, unsealed filings show

Judge Beryl Howell lit into Twitter for taking steps to give Donald Trump advance notice about the search warrant.

www.politico.com

Howell lit into Twitter for taking “extraordinary” and apparently unprecedented steps to give Trump advance notice about the search warrant — despite prosecutors’ warnings, backed by unspecified evidence, that notifying Trump could cause grave damage to their investigation.

I read that Twitter was routinely disclosing information on other accounts when requested by law enforcement all during this time. Musk is an butt crevasse.