Trump considering legislation that may scrap law that protects social media companies

[webfact]

Trump considering legislation that may scrap law that protects social media companies

By Nandita Bose and David Shepardson

 

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a front page of the New York Post as he speaks to reporters while he signing an executive order on social media companies in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., May 28, 2020. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said he will introduce legislation that may scrap or weaken a law that has long protected internet companies, including Twitter <TWTR.N> and Facebook <FB.O>, an extraordinary attempt to intervene in the media that experts said was unlikely to survive legal scrutiny. Trump signed an executive order on Thursday afternoon after attacking Twitter for tagging his tweets about unsubstantiated claims of fraud in mail-in voting with a warning prompting readers to fact-check the posts.

 

Trump said we may "remove or change" a law kown as section 230 through legislation so social media companies will not enjoy this legal immunity, which protects such platforms from liability for content posted by their users.

 

The President also said U.S. Attorney General William Barr will pursue said legislation to regulate social media companies.

 

On Wednesday, Reuters reported the White House's plan to modify Section 230 based on a copy of a draft order.

 

Facebook and Twitter did not immediately comment on the executive order.

 

The President's remarks and the draft order, as written, attempts to circumvent Congress and the courts in directing changes to long-established interpretations of Section 230. It represents the latest attempt by Trump to use the tools of the Presidency to force private companies to change policies that he believes are not favorable to him.

 

"In terms of presidential efforts to limit critical commentary about themselves, I think one would have to go back to the Sedition Act of 1798 - which made it illegal to say false things about the president and certain other public officials - to find an attack supposedly rooted in law by a president on any entity which comments or prints comments about public issues and public people," said First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams.

 

Others like Jack Balkin, a Yale University constitutional law professor said "The president is trying to frighten, coerce, scare, cajole social media companies to leave him alone and not do what Twitter has just done to him."

 

Still, Twitter's shares were down 4.4% on Thursday. Facebook was down 1.7 percent and Google parent Alphabet Inc <GOOGL.O> were up slightly.

 

Trump, who uses Twitter heavily to promote his policies and insult his opponents, has long claimed without evidence that the service is biased in favor of Democrats. He and his supporters have leveled the same unsubstantiated charges against Facebook, which Trump's presidential campaign uses heavily as an advertising vehicle.

 

(Reporting by Nandita Bose and David Shepardson in Washington, Additional reporting by Elizabeth Culliford in Birmingham, England; Susan Cornwell and Susan Heavey and Jeff Mason in Washington and Karen Freifeld in New York ; Edited by Nick Zieminski and Grant McCool)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-05-29

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Slip]

The sooner this fragile wannabe king is in prison the better for the world and the good ol' U S of A.

[lannarebirth]

Almost every post one reads in this forum is based on little knowledge and is a pavlovian response colored by personal biases. I encourage everyone to actually read Section 230 before commenting.

 

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

[Gumballl]

2 minutes ago, Slip said:

The sooner this fragile wannabe king is in prison the better for the world and the good ol' U S of A.

I could care less if he goes to prison. I just want his name erased from all history books.

[sirineou]

Legislation that was good during two years of hid administration, until they called him on his lies. 

[Gumballl]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Almost every post one reads in this forum is based on little knowledge and is a pavlovian response colored by personal biases. I encourage everyone to actually read Section 230 before commenting.

 

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

Assume I've been drinking. Can you summarize Section 230; I'm not in the mood to read a "book".

[Slip]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Almost every post one reads in this forum is based on little knowledge and is a pavlovian response colored by personal biases. I encourage everyone to actually read Section 230 before commenting.

 

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

Why specifically?  My own comment may well be showing a personal bias, but it is a response to what I see as being a knee jerk reaction from trump to being fact checked by Twitter.  Having said that, thanks- I did read it, and to be honest I'm not sure what he is hoping to achieve at all.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, Gumballl said:

Assume I've been drinking. Can you summarize Section 230; I'm not in the mood to read a "book".

It's really rather short. You could have read it already in the time it took me to respond to your post.

 

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

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, Slip said:

Why specifically?  My own comment may well be showing a personal bias, but it is a response to what I see as being a knee jerk reaction from trump to being fact checked by Twitter.  Having said that, thanks- I did read it, and to be honest I'm not sure what he is hoping to achieve at all.

Now you know what the topic is really about.

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Almost every post one reads in this forum is based on little knowledge and is a pavlovian response colored by personal biases. I encourage everyone to actually read Section 230 before commenting.

 

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

What does that have to do with law that protects social media companies?

why was such legislation good good all this time that he occupied the white house but it is not now? 

How does fact checking violates 47 U.S. Code § 230

Is it possible that your reply is a Pavlovian response? 

[metisdead]

A post using an obscene misspelling of Twitter has been removed as well as the replies.

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What does that have to do with law that protects social media companies?

why was such legislation good good all this time that he occupied the white house but it is not now? 

How does fact checking violates 47 U.S. Code § 230

Is it possible that your reply is a Pavlovian response? 

 

It's possible but unlikely. So, are you saying that every law that is on the books that came into being before Trump became president is a good law?

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

It's possible but unlikely. So, are you saying that every law that is on the books that came into being before Trump became president is a good law?

No I am not saying that at all

Are you saying that it is a coincidence that after they fact check  his twits he suddenly becomes interested in removing legislation that protects the company he is upset with, even though he showed no such interest for his whole term  ? 

[ezzra]

In his defense one can say that what has started as a platform of free speech and good intentions has been hijacked by all sorts of people/groups with agendas and nefarious intentions to do harm to people of all kind and all nations, and now it has turned to be grossly misused and misinterpreted of what are the boundaries of said free speech and how to use thees tools for the betterment of man kind rather than use it for everything other that what it was intended for...

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

No I am not saying that at all

Are you saying that it is a coincidence that after they fact check  his twits he suddenly becomes interested in removing legislation that protects the company he is upset with, even though he showed no such interest for his whole term  ? 

 

My personal opinion is that he is trying to get people talking about this non subject than the fact that 101,000 Americans have just recently died. Some of them from both his actions and inactions. Looks like mission accompished.

[simon43]

IMHO, social media has turned into a monster of lies and fake news.  The sooner the social media companies are made legally responsible for anything that they publish, the better.

 

When I ran SMS text messaging services in 12 different countries in the early 2000s, my company was legally responsible for the content of every single text message that was sent through my servers.  I had to check the content of each message (using AI apps and 'live' moderators).  Any transgression and my service was suspended for several weeks, costing me tens of thousands of $.

 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

My personal opinion is that he is trying to get people talking about this non subject than the fact that 101,000 Americans have just recently died. Some of them from both his actions and inactions. Looks like mission accompished.

You are absolutely right!! Unfortunately for him many of us , including you, can walk and chew gum at the same time. 

 

[Tug]

Well here we go let’s try intimidating social media like he’s done with the Republican Party how dare anyone call out Donald Trump 

[simple1]

16 minutes ago, Slip said:

Why specifically?  My own comment may well be showing a personal bias, but it is a response to what I see as being a knee jerk reaction from trump to being fact checked by Twitter.  Having said that, thanks- I did read it, and to be honest I'm not sure what he is hoping to achieve at all.

Likely just a noise generating propaganda move by trump as would require a change in legislation to enforce, so yet another piece of ammunition for the Dems to hopefully win come 11/20. One can say another attempted step towards authoritarianism by trump - trump is unfit to represent the Office of the President of the USA.

[sirineou]

5 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Likely just a noise generating propaganda move by trump as would require a change in legislation to enforce, so yet another piece of ammunition for the Dems to hopefully win come 11/20. One can say another attempted step towards authoritarianism by trump - trump is unfit to represent the Office of the President of the USA.

His miscalculation is that it  contributes toward tramp fatigue .

[lannarebirth]

9 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Likely just a noise generating propaganda move by trump as would require a change in legislation to enforce, so yet another piece of ammunition for the Dems to hopefully win come 11/20. One can say another attempted step towards authoritarianism by trump - trump is unfit to represent the Office of the President of the USA.

 

Trump doesn't care one way or the other about it. He only cares that you're talking about it. For all his faults, which are legion, his political instincts are really very good.

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Trump doesn't care one way or the other about it. He only cares that you're talking about it. For all his faults, which are legion, his political instincts are really very good.

Matter of opinion, personally I see his latest move adding to trump's politics of division which are harmful to the nation - i wouldn't name that as good political instincts as he needs to get undecided voters over the line.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

Matter of opinion, personally I see his latest move adding to trump's politics of division which are harmful to the nation - i wouldn't name that as good political instincts.

 

It's only harmful if one has a polarized point of view. If your objective is to heal the nation over holding your polarized point of view, then it's all useful. Bear in mind it took us decades to get here and it's going to take almost as long to claw our way back.

[Tippaporn]

City Journal - Platform, or Publisher?

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

 

Once Jack Dorsey made the decision to become a curator of opinion he switched his business model from an online platform to that of a publisher.  It's that simple, folks.  Hem and haw all you want with opposing opinions that are not grounded in law.

 

This is a win not just for Trump but for all people, even when they don't recognize it.  Only ignorant people will argue against freedom of speech for in their ignorance they don't understand the importance of free speech.

 

Edit:  I have no why some of the text is showing as strike through.  I tried to get rid of it but can't.

 

[PatOngo]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

Almost every post one reads in this forum is based on little knowledge and is a pavlovian response colored by personal biases. I encourage everyone to actually read Section 230 before commenting.

 

 

Opinions are like buttholes my friend, every ones got one!

[animalmagic]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content.

Forgive my limited knowledge of US laws and their application.  If this immunity is taken away then doesn't Twitter become liable for every defamatory, fraudulent or otherwise unlawful comment made by the president?

Seems a bit unfair really.

p.s. I never use twitter, and never wish to.

[Tippaporn]

57 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

My personal opinion is that he is trying to get people talking about this non subject than the fact that 101,000 Americans have just recently died. Some of them from both his actions and inactions. Looks like mission accompished.

This is a huge subject.  On line media platforms should not be arbiters of truth for the opinions their platforms host.  Especially when their "truth" is hopelessly biased and even false.  At that point they become publishers in which case they rightfully lose their protections under Section 230.

 

Your belief that Trump is the cause of and responsible for Wuhan virus deaths in America is about as biased and untruthful an opinion one as one could have.  Laughable . . . and sad to see people so easily duped by their own beliefs.

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

Forgive my limited knowledge of US laws and their application.  If this immunity is taken away then doesn't Twitter become liable for every defamatory, fraudulent or otherwise unlawful comment made by the president?

Seems a bit unfair really.

p.s. I never use twitter, and never wish to.

Yes, if Twitter chooses to act as a publisher they become liable for content.  Why would that be unfair?  It's their choice. Or are you just being silly with that comment?

[TopDeadSenter]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

What does that have to do with law that protects social media companies?

From lannarebirths link above

 

(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.

 

I believe this is the part where Trump's argument has merit. Now that Twitter is actively "fact checking" Trump's account and letting others(liberals) write whatever garbage they want they have crossed the line. They have weaponized and created an official bias, and thus are now publishers not merely a forum. Kathy Griffin and her death threats to Trump are fine, the President warning about electoral fraud is not. Tough sell. No wonder Twitter stock crashed 5% yesterday.

[lannarebirth]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Your belief that Trump is the cause of and responsible for Wuhan virus deaths in America is about as biased and untruthful an opinion one as one could have.  Laughable . . . and sad to see people so easily duped by their own beliefs.

 

If you can point to one post of mine that suggests that Trump is the cause of SARS C0V-2 I will surrender my membership to this platform. That his actions have contributed to a marginally higher death toll is not quantifiable but he does feed those ignorants that are not taking responsibility for themselves or others and that is unforgivable IMO.

 

My own belief is that Americans have elected for the past 3 or more decades, leaders that have made the country a laggard in all things for the benefit of a very few. Medicine, education, governance, critical thinking, all in decline in America. My own opinion is that Trump is not better or worse than Biden who would also lead America on that steady downslope. Trump at least is useful in making a change, as long as he doesn't defund whichever agency is charged with protecting us from near Earth astroids, at which point the issue will become moot.