[1A] The Free Speech Thread

[chipbennett]

So, first, the entire thing is an affront. To his credit, the preamble that lays out why he wants to do this is pretty honest: he doesn't like their ideology. Against that backdrop, the entire thing is as blatantly anti-1A as Obama's effort to use the CDC to "clarify" whether "gun violence" is an epidemic is anti-2A.

When you start from a specious premise, you generally get an invalid conclusion.

Now, that brings us to the practical effect of it - and chip, bring your risk mitigation hat.

Pre-EO, the conversation with someone hosting content had immunity as the foundation. Good faith enforcement of reasonable rules and documentation of how that was done made it pretty safe. (Laymen's terms, there.)

Post-EO, the solidity of that foundation is in doubt. If someone is spending $5k (conservatively) for content hosting for a hobby and there was little risk of liability, then that's no big deal. And if it generates some revenue to offset the cost, then that's great. If it breaks even, that's a good year.

Now, that $5k spend could turn into thousands of dollars of expenses (maybe tens of thousands) if some .gov functionary doesn't like what is being said.

None of this has anything, at all, to do with what the social media platform says. It has to do with the social media platform censoring and editorializing within the content of its users.

Trump is not complaining about @Jack or @Twitter tweeting anything at all, whether critical of Trump or otherwise. Trump is complaining about Twitter shadow-banning users, using ideological bias to throttle, suspend, and ban users, and modifying user content (specifically, Trump's) in an editorial manner.

The entire 1A rubric is based on limiting government to content-neutral rules. This upends that. The content is the target.

No, it isn't. Social media platforms are fully empowered to become publishers. All that this EO does is threaten to remove section 230 liability protection from platforms that choose to be publishers.

And the Fairness Doctrine was always a bad idea.

Again, this has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, even in invoking the Fairness Doctrine, you are implicitly admitting that what Trump says is correct. Why? Because the Fairness Doctrine has to do with the content produced by the platform; thus, in invoking the Fairness Doctrine, you implicitly admit that the content is the platform's content and therefore by definition not the users' content. And if the content is the platform's, then the platform is not a platform, but rather a publisher.

 

[chipbennett]

Wait. What ideology is Trump accusing the Socials of censoring?

I would like to turn this question back around onto you: what ideology (or protected speech in general) are you accusing Trump of censoring via this EO?

 

[jamil]

Wait. What ideology is Trump accusing the Socials of censoring?


Is he worried about them deleting or "disappearing" information from CNBC?

Oh, or are we now taking Trump only literally?


No they didn't. Its like now, when the 2 sides are liberal and not-quite-as-liberal.

Well, I can remember back to the late 70s. I think it was trashed in the mid-80s when I was in high school, maybe even under Reagan. Before the late 70s, there may have been earnest attempts to abide by it.

Basically, the fundamental problem was that it made .gov the arbiter of what was "fair" or "balanced." That's not a conservative philosophy. And the only way to enforce it is to manage content. "NPR, we're going to fine you because you didn't have a conservative that we like." It is unworkable.

I think you are inferring some things not said in the EO. You're using what Trump has said publicly and then you're finding it in the EO. And it's just not there. The quote you provided says nothing about using ideology as the basis to determine if they should have immunity or not. There are no such instructions to the FTC in the EO.

Maybe you remember a different media than I do. Walter Cronkite, for example was a lefty for sure. But it wasn't at all overt. They did tend to represent both sides of things. If you can watch CNN or Fox News and tell me that they're no more blatantly biased than the news was in the 60's/70's, then I think you don't remember the period as well as you think you do. I think the fairness doctrine was removed in 1987. If Don Lemon was on back in '87 CNN would have been fined. You could detect some bias, sure. But it is quite overt now. They see no reason even to pretend to be objective.

 

[jamil]

I would like to turn this question back around onto you: what ideology (or protected speech in general) are you accusing Trump of censoring via this EO?

You're just turning it back to essentially the same question I asked and T.Lex tried to turn around on me. There isn't anything about using ideology to make determinations in the EO. I want T.Lex to address THAT. He's taking Trump's tweets and trying to superimpose them into the EO as if that's a thing.

 

[chipbennett]

You're just turning it back to essentially the same question I asked and T.Lex tried to turn around on me. There isn't anything about using ideology to make determinations in the EO. I want T.Lex to address THAT. He's taking Trump's tweets and trying to superimpose them into the EO as if that's a thing.

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There is literally nothing in the EO about the government stifling free speech of any kind, for any reason.

 

[T.Lex]

I would like to turn this question back around onto you: what ideology (or protected speech in general) are you accusing Trump of censoring via this EO?

The liberal ideology. Or is this not clear enough for you, either?

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

Twitter... reflects political bias. That's what it says.

What political bias do you think Trump is calling out?

Maybe you remember a different media than I do. Walter Cronkite, for example was a lefty for sure. But it wasn't at all overt. They did tend to represent both sides of things. If you can watch CNN or Fox News and tell me that they're no more blatantly biased than the news was in the 60's/70's, then I think you don't remember the period as well as you think you do. I think the fairness doctrine was removed in 1987. If Don Lemon was on back in '87 CNN would have been fined. You could detect some bias, sure. But it is quite overt now. They see no reason even to pretend to be objective.

Exactly. I only remember the end of Cronkite's career. But you aren't seriously saying the entire field of journalism was following his lead during Reagan's political career?

No, while there may have been some bastions of journalistic integrity, even I as a tender pre-teen could tell there was a political agenda to how things were being portrayed.

And yes, it is overt. THAT'S BETTER. This is a marketplace solution. Not a government solution. Government cannot guarantee equality by the power of enforcement.

Regarding the FTC. I can't remember, where do you stand on whether Trump told the ATF to ban bumpstocks?

 

[T.Lex]

Well, that's the thing, isn't it? There is literally nothing in the EO about the government stifling free speech of any kind, for any reason.

Untrue - both literally and if you take into account "chilling" of the right.

 

[T.Lex]

You're just turning it back to essentially the same question I asked and T.Lex tried to turn around on me. There isn't anything about using ideology to make determinations in the EO. I want T.Lex to address THAT. He's taking Trump's tweets and trying to superimpose them into the EO as if that's a thing.

Again, untrue. I haven't referenced Trump's tweets whatsoever. In fact, I don't think I've read any of them regarding this.

Has he actually said what I'm saying his intent is? That'd be interesting. He doesn't mind admitting his authoritarian bent.

 

[chipbennett]

The liberal ideology. Or is this not clear enough for you, either?

Twitter... reflects political bias. That's what it says.

What political bias do you think Trump is calling out?

Perhaps you don't use Twitter? Are you unaware of its mechanisms?

Trump is not saying that Twitter's officer in charge of site integrity can't display ideological bias in his own, personal Tweets. Rather, he is claiming that Twitter, as a platform, is using ideological bias to editorialize user content, thereby making Twitter not a platform, but rather a publisher.

He's not saying that the Twitter officer in charge of site integrity is wrong for exercising free speech in his own, personal tweets. Rather, he is saying that Twitter is stifling the free speech of its users, based on ideology. It's not about Twitter publishing its own employee's personal Tweets. It is about Twitter modifying (editorializing within) other users' content, on the basis of ideology.

If Twitter had replied to Trump's tweet - or quote-tweeted Trump's tweet - with their "fact check" link, then there would be no issue. If Twitter consistently applied its TOS with respect to user content (such as with respect to content deemed to "glorify violence"), then there would be no problem.

Untrue - both literally and if you take into account "chilling" of the right.

What, exactly, is being chilled? What specific speech? And who would be uttering said speech? Who would file a lawsuit that constitutional protection of free speech is being violated? And what would be the precise nature of the alleged violation?

 

[T.Lex]

Perhaps you don't use Twitter? Are you unaware of its mechanisms?

I am on Twitter. And, as aware of its mechanisms as a 50+ year old can be.

Trump is not saying that Twitter's officer in charge of site integrity can't display ideological bias in his own, personal Tweets. Rather, he is claiming that Twitter, as a platform, is using ideological bias to editorialize user content, thereby making Twitter not a platform, but rather a publisher.

Indeed.

What you appear to not see is that Trump is exerting the full force of the federal government, which by any measure is a blunt instrument, to make sure Twitter bends to his will regarding acceptable content that is fact-checked or otherwise moderated.

He's not saying that the Twitter officer in charge of site integrity is wrong for exercising free speech in his own, personal tweets. Rather, he is saying that Twitter is stifling the free speech of its users, based on ideology. It's not about Twitter publishing its own employee's personal Tweets. It is about Twitter modifying (editorializing within) other users' content, on the basis of ideology.

Which literally changes nothing.

Twitter is a private business.

Perhaps Twitter's bigger risk by playing this game is that the federal government will unleash its infinite pool of dollars and create a .gov sponsored competing social media platform. Like China.

What, exactly, is being chilled? What specific speech? And who would be uttering said speech? Who would file a lawsuit that constitutional protection of free speech is being violated? And what would be the precise nature of the alleged violation?

That root of the answer to those question lies in the Constitutional Law class in law school. Short answer is, when .gov plants preferential seeds regarding content, constitutional problems are the fruit.

 

[T.Lex]

Hey jamil and chip, I've engaged with you on this out of respect. For me, for multiple reasons, we are probably getting to the "agree to disagree" point. Apologies.

 

[chipbennett]

I am on Twitter. And, as aware of its mechanisms as a 50+ year old can be.


Indeed.

What you appear to not see is that Trump is exerting the full force of the federal government, which by any measure is a blunt instrument, to make sure Twitter bends to his will regarding acceptable content that is fact-checked or otherwise moderated.

I think this might be the crux of our disagreement. This EO does no such thing. The issue is not the "fact-checking" itself, but rather the modification of user content for the sake of said "fact-checking" (or warning about content that "violates" TOS).

Which literally changes nothing.

Twitter is a private business.

A. No, Twitter is a publicly traded business. Not that it really makes a difference, because:

B. Twitter claims section 230 protection against content liability as a content platform rather than a publisher. And that very much does matter.

Perhaps Twitter's bigger risk by playing this game is that the federal government will unleash its infinite pool of dollars and create a .gov sponsored competing social media platform. Like China.

More likely, social media platforms are deemed to be "utilities", or otherwise subject to public right of accommodation.

That root of the answer to those question lies in the Constitutional Law class in law school. Short answer is, when .gov plants preferential seeds regarding content, constitutional problems are the fruit.

What seed of preferential content is the .gov planting here. You keep talking in generalities and theory. I'm asking for specifics.

 

[actaeon277]

Twitter is a private business.
Well, that private business is being protected from being sued.
The "full force of the Federal Government" is ALREADY being used.

But, if they no longer meet the definition of "provider", then why should they get the protection.
So, this EO would actually be LESS intrusion, not more.

 

[jamil]

The liberal ideology. Or is this not clear enough for you, either?



Twitter... reflects political bias. That's what it says.

What political bias do you think Trump is calling out?


Exactly. I only remember the end of Cronkite's career. But you aren't seriously saying the entire field of journalism was following his lead during Reagan's political career?

No, while there may have been some bastions of journalistic integrity, even I as a tender pre-teen could tell there was a political agenda to how things were being portrayed.

And yes, it is overt. THAT'S BETTER. This is a marketplace solution. Not a government solution. Government cannot guarantee equality by the power of enforcement.

Regarding the FTC. I can't remember, where do you stand on whether Trump told the ATF to ban bumpstocks?

That’s not a rebuttal. That’s whataboutism. This isn’t even in the same universe as banning an accessory by redefining it as a machine gun. I didn’t oppose it because I didn’t think the POTUS has no authority to make executive orders. I opposed it because that particular one was illegal. The definition of machine gun is written in law. He can’t just take something that doesn’t fit that definition and declare by fiat that it does.

But, I think he does have the authority to ask the FTC to clarify the rules for how to apply the qualifications for those protections the EO deals with. So, if the FTC comes up with rules that say platforms can ban liberal speech but can’t ban conservative speech, we can revisit this conversation.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That’s not a rebuttal. That’s whataboutism. This isn’t even in the same universe as banning an accessory by redefining it as a machine gun. I didn’t oppose it because I didn’t think the POTUS has no authority to make executive orders. I opposed it because that particular one was illegal. The definition of machine gun is written in law. He can’t just take something that doesn’t fit that definition and declare by fiat that it does.

But, I think he does have the authority to ask the FTC to clarify the rules for how to apply the qualifications for those protections the EO deals with. So, if the FTC comes up with rules that say platforms can ban liberal speech but can’t ban conservative speech, we can revisit this conversation.

 

[jamil]

That sums the point up well

 

[MCgrease08]

If this isn't the laziest, most millennial thing ever.

Facebook employees stage virtual ‘walkout,’ speak out against company over Trump

Basically, dozens of FB employees requested time off to "go support the protest" because FB hasn't removed any of Trump's posts on the platform. They were looking for a way to "protest" while getting paid, so they used PTO time. Talk about speaking truth to power. You brave, brave souls.

 

[BugI02]

The EO appears to acknowledge that online platforms have a right to moderate for inappropriate content. That has nothing to do with ideological reasons. So I'm waiting to hear the list of ideological reasons INGO moderates content. You keep and I keep wondering WTF? Do you have a chapter and verse that's particularly troubling? I'm not a lawyer so maybe it's escaped me. But all this thing seems to do is give the FTC so much time to clarify where the line is for platforms losing their immunity under the act.

It's like repealing 'Net Neutrality', it's TEOTWATLEXKI. We'll all be killed, or something

 

[BugI02]

I think you are inferring some things not said in the EO. You're using what Trump has said publicly and then you're finding it in the EO. And it's just not there. The quote you provided says nothing about using ideology as the basis to determine if they should have immunity or not. There are no such instructions to the FTC in the EO.

Maybe you remember a different media than I do. Walter Cronkite, for example was a lefty for sure. But it wasn't at all overt. They did tend to represent both sides of things. If you can watch CNN or Fox News and tell me that they're no more blatantly biased than the news was in the 60's/70's, then I think you don't remember the period as well as you think you do. I think the fairness doctrine was removed in 1987. If Don Lemon was on back in '87 CNN would have been fined. You could detect some bias, sure. But it is quite overt now. They see no reason even to pretend to be objective.

What little recall I have of the fairness doctrine leads me to believe that the news organizations didn't have to automatically include a rebuttal of whatever story they presented, but if some person or group wished to rebut their presentation they had to make time available gratis. The burden was largely financial in having to give up valuable air time, so they tended to stay away from subjects or presentations that they knew would be a lightning rod.

 

[jamil]

If this isn't the laziest, most millennial thing ever.

Facebook employees stage virtual ‘walkout,’ speak out against company over Trump

Basically, dozens of FB employees requested time off to "go support the protest" because FB hasn't removed any of Trump's posts on the platform. They were looking for a way to "protest" while getting paid, so they used PTO time. Talk about speaking truth to power. You brave, brave souls.

Well. It's costing them. PTO is part of their compensation. They're owed it. And they're spending it. That's time they can't take for recreational reasons. And it's facebook. So who gives a **** about them or their punk ass boss.