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.

 

[wardorican]

So do I have this right? Someone quickly correct me if I'm wrong. Trump signs an unconstitutional (my opinion, yet to be tested) EO that seeks to get rid of protections that social media sites have against being sued for the content on their sites. As a result of the new exposure that Twitter and FB might have for false, misleading, slanderous, libelous, defamatory posts made on their platform, they might seek to delete such posts in order to protect themselves.

So Trump got mad because he lied and got called on it by twitter so now he signs an EO that will cause the lies that he's posting on twitter to be deleted.....the very thing he signed the EO (in his mind) to stop.

Makes perfect sense, right?

It's gotta be a troll. I'm probably giving too much benefit for the doubt here, but.... He's going to force them to fight it and say they shouldn't have any responsibility for what a member posts, and basically have to undo their original position or fact checking some things. I think he's forcing them to go all in on what they were doing, which they never wanted to do, so in the future, they may do nothing at all.

I don't think that will work out in reality. There is always some level of responsibility, or choice a company/person makes.

 

[superchuck500]

"If it were able to legally be shut down I would do it."

He's referring to an American corporation with 25B in market cap, 3.5B in annual revenue, and 4,000 employees. He would shut it down because they put a fact-check notice on his tweet.

 

[efil4]

"If it were able to legally be shut down I would do it."

He's referring to an American corporation with 25B in market cap, 3.5B in annual revenue, and 4,000 employees. He would shut it down because they put a fact-check notice on his tweet.

But he cant.

Which is why his panties are ruffled.

There is no larger blow to a narcissist than to tell him, point blank, you cant do what you want to do.

Twitter, if im guessing right, will simply turn up the fact check meter on his tweets moving forward.

( i would...but im juvenile like that lol )

 

[superchuck500]

And here come the henchmen. Cruz says Twitter allowing Iranian officials to create accounts violates US sanctions against Iran. And that it is criminal.

 

[The moose]

This whole this is just a riot.

He pushed so hard and never had a problem and doubled down after the widow pleading to someone to make it stop got the table turned on him.

Fact checking what he posts is fine.

I would much rather Twitter block him from governing by tweet but it is a start.

 

[JimEverett]

I see it less about Twitter's free speech, and more about individuals.

To me, Twitter isn't gaining or losing free speech, they are being told they are responsible for the content posted on their site. So, they now have stronger reason to act as an editor for individuals. This action suppresses individual free speech further. I say further, because social media platforms don't give complete free speech rights, as they are private and can limit certain things.

I see this as just saying Twitter, Facebook, etc shouldn't be on the hook for what others say, maybe within some limits.

You seem to be saying the regulation, or threat of regulation, of Twitter would be what limits individuals ability to speak?
I am not sure I follow the distinction.

How can you separate the resources Twitter has - the platform itself, the servers, the advertising, etc. from content? It seems akin to saying that if the government banned the selling of ink and paper then it wouldn't be violating free speech.

 

[wardorican]

You seem to be saying the regulation, or threat of regulation, of Twitter would be what limits individuals ability to speak?
I am not sure I follow the distinction.

How can you separate the resources Twitter has - the platform itself, the servers, the advertising, etc. from content? It seems akin to saying that if the government banned the selling of ink and paper then it wouldn't be violating free speech.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the resources vs the content.

I disagreed that this is a free speech claim for Twitter, which was your assertion.

Regarding individuals, I believe the President and many on the right have complained that any action by Twitter to censor or fact check a user is an affront on their personal free speech rights. Just like any discussion on colleges seems to be about free speech from the Right. So, the regulation would cause Twitter to censor/fact check MORE people MORE often, so wouldn't the same argument about being an affront to free speech still hold?

Again, like my other post here, I think this is a way of pushing Twitter to go all in (which they never wanted) with censorship, vs just doing a little here and there. Now, they'll be in the uncomfortable position of having to argue against censorship, or maybe they'll just argue against the corporate liability, but they censor for the public good? My limited understanding on this sees this as a pretty odd box they'll be put in, if it has to go that far. There might be easier legal challenged that never have to get into philosophies.

 

[JRad]

How can you separate the resources Twitter has - the platform itself, the servers, the advertising, etc. from content?

The content is user data, the other items are hardware and IP for the most part. User data is commonly regulated differently (even if it's self regulation).

 

[JimEverett]

That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the resources vs the content.

I disagreed that this is a free speech claim for Twitter, which was your assertion.

Regarding individuals, I believe the President and many on the right have complained that any action by Twitter to censor or fact check a user is an affront on their personal free speech rights. Just like any discussion on colleges seems to be about free speech from the Right. So, the regulation would cause Twitter to censor/fact check MORE people MORE often, so wouldn't the same argument about being an affront to free speech still hold?

Again, like my other post here, I think this is a way of pushing Twitter to go all in (which they never wanted) with censorship, vs just doing a little here and there. Now, they'll be in the uncomfortable position of having to argue against censorship, or maybe they'll just argue against the corporate liability, but they censor for the public good? My limited understanding on this sees this as a pretty odd box they'll be put in, if it has to go that far. There might be easier legal challenged that never have to get into philosophies.

I think there is a free speech claim becasue the [threat of] E.O. is a direct response to the fact checking content of Twitter.

 

[JimEverett]

The content is user data, the other items are hardware and IP for the most part. User data is commonly regulated differently (even if it's self regulation).

I ill give an example of what I meant - if an end user of Twitter write "Trump sucks" and Twitter publishes it and then in some sort of retaliation, the government says Twitter servers canot be used to disseminate anti-Presidential propaganda - that is a violation of free speech, even if nothing is prohibiting the end user from continuing to relay his message. The regulation of the corporate entity's resources is the violation.

 

[wardorican]

I think there is a free speech claim becasue the [threat of] E.O. is a direct response to the fact checking content of Twitter.

Is the claim that they are being forced to censor and be liable for things that aren't what they're saying?

Maybe you can just expand on what you view their speech claim is.

 

[JimEverett]

Is the claim that they are being forced to censor and be liable for things that aren't what they're saying?

Maybe you can just expand on what you view their speech claim is.

My understanding of it is this: Trump insinuated Joe Scarborough murdered his intern 20 years ago. Pressure was put on twitter to counteract such claims. Twitter responded by putting a "fact check" blurb or something under any tweet insinuating Morning Joe murdered his intern. This prompted Trump to propose and executive order and perhaps investigate Twitter political bias.
That is what I think is a violation of Twitter's free speech rights. Perhaps it is better to say any actual action is violative of free speech, but I would go a step further and say Trump has already violated the free speech rights simply due to threat.

It is a different question as to whether the government taking the position that Twitter is a publisher of all its content is unconstitutional. I think it is, but I also agree that it is probably a little bit more difficult question.
[EDIT] And I think that apart from the fact that Congress has expressly legislated that Twitter (and others) are not publishers.

 

[JimEverett]

I am not trying to backtrack at all on my opposition to what Trump has done, but it is worth pointing out that a platform like Twitter should only play a very limited role in content production/policing if it is going to or should remain a non-publisher.

I am sure that is or will be the basis of what Trump is doing. The problem, as I see it, lies far more with the President clearly targeting Twitter because of their "fact-check" of the President's statement.

 

[Incumbent]

My understanding of it is this: Trump insinuated Joe Scarborough murdered his intern 20 years ago. Pressure was put on twitter to counteract such claims. Twitter responded by putting a "fact check" blurb or something under any tweet insinuating Morning Joe murdered his intern. This prompted Trump to propose and executive order and perhaps investigate Twitter political bias.

I don't think Twitter has done anything to address Trump's defamatory allegations against Scarborough, at least not the tweets from May 26th.

What they have done is added linked disclaimers on a couple of his tweets about mail-in voting.

The action might be novel but they already had in place a policy about misleading election and voter information. I'm not sure how they have handled such violations involving other users but assume it's been deletion and then account suspension for repeated violations.

They also hid his tweet about shooting looters behind a confirm-to-view notification for "glorifying violence".

 

[Eeyore]

 

[dtc]

But he cant.

Which is why his panties are ruffled.

There is no larger blow to a narcissist than to tell him, point blank, you cant do what you want to do.

Twitter, if im guessing right, will simply turn up the fact check meter on his tweets moving forward.

( i would...but im juvenile like that lol )

When I first heard he was going to make some EO about social media issues, I was sure - absolutely sure - that would finally be the bridge too far for his "conservative" followers.

I was wrong. And I'm still shocked.

I was absolutely positive that using the power of the presidency to single out companies and to attack them via regulation would surely spark outspoken condemnation.

I'm at a loss.

 

[MT15]

He’s been attacking and/or praising companies since day one, according to his own political whims and needs. Not sure how anyone could be shocked by this. It’s long been his practice. IIRC, he’s even mused about shutting down media companies before that he thinks criticize him unfairly.

And no, Twitter never did anything about his truly evil tweets suggesting that Joe Scarborough murdered an employee 19 years ago. All they had to do to bring on his tantrum was to point out that he was saying a false statement about California vote by mail. You wouldn’t even see the fact check unless you clicked on the small statement they placed at the bottom of his false tweet. And even then, I never saw the fact check on my iPad so there’s a good chance a fair number of people never even saw it.

Since then they have flagged a couple of tweets for promoting violence. Even then they didn’t alter the tweets, just made you click a disclaimer before you see them. Nothing to keep people from seeing them, just a warning.

So, months of waiting for a national testing and tracing program, which we still do not have. Months of living on the edge of having enough PPE, which we still have periodic rolling shortages, and months of mixed messages on what people should or shouldn’t be doing to keep themselves safe from a novel virus, and one single fact check by Twitter causes him to spring into action? Seems to me his priorities are clear, and they only involve his own political fortunes.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't think Twitter has done anything to address Trump's defamatory allegations against Scarborough, at least not the tweets from May 26th.

What they have done is added linked disclaimers on a couple of his tweets about mail-in voting.

The action might be novel but they already had in place a policy about misleading election and voter information. I'm not sure how they have handled such violations involving other users but assume it's been deletion and then account suspension for repeated violations.

They also hid his tweet about shooting looters behind a confirm-to-view notification for "glorifying violence".

That’s correct - the fact checking was on the mail-in voting tweet and I think it was based on Twitter’s COVID misinformation policy.