by Kara Machowski
Thursday afternoon the president signed a new Executive Order under Section 5: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices, of the Federal Trace Act. President Trump signs the act in response to Twitter slapping a "fact-checker" button to two tweets regarding mail-in voting leading to voter fraud on Tuesday afternoon.
The button led users to a link that debunks the president’s theory about absentee or mail in ballots. The president tweeted numerous times since the button was added to his two tweets, which was also added the same button on tweets from spokesman Lijian Zhao, in which he suggested that it was the U.S. Army who brought coronavirus to Wuhan. Jimmy Kimmel also received some scrutiny and whose post was given a "manipulated media" badge in early May when he retweeted a false video that was falsely edited, that showed Mike Pence delivering PPE, was circulating Twitter and later apologized.
Section 230 was also under attack by the president, which states;
"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."
Section 230 was created to protect platforms from what their users post online, whether it be hate speech, a threat, or graphic material. However, the president has accused such companies of 'editing' users posts by either deleting, editing or marking them as misinformation. While at the same time many platforms have guidelines for users and only under those guidelines do platforms see fit to edit, suspend or label user's material in guidance of those rules. However, a company is able to redesign their rules to enact the suspension or censorship of a post as they see fit.
For the president, who at times lies on Twitter, this can greatly impact the very platform that he touts for aiding him in winning the 2016 election. On Wednesday the white house speaker announced that Trump was planning to sign the executive order and on Thursday afternoon be did just that.
From the oval office the president stated;
"I think this, if twitter were not honorable and your going to have a guy such as this (pointing to a newspaper) then we aught to just shut it down, as far as I'm concerned, but I'd have to go through a legal process to do that. I thin that if I could legally shut it down then I would, but I think that would hurt them very badly if we didn't use it."
He added; "Currently social media giants receive an unrepresented liability shield based on the idea that their a neutral platform, which their not, not an editor with a view point. My executive order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the communications and decency act, to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring of any political content will not be able to keep any liability shield.
That's a big deal. They have a shield, they can do what they want, they have that shield, they not going to have that shield. My executive order further instructs the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, to prohibit social media comp from engaging in any deceptive acts of practices affecting commerce. This authority resides in Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.
I think you know it pretty well, most of you know it very well, I would think you know it quite well right? Additionally I'm directing to attorney general to work cooperatively with the states, he's going to be working very much and very closely in corporation with these states to enforce their own laws against such deceptive business practices. The states have broad and powerful authority to regulate in this arena and we encourage them to do it if they see exactly as we've been seeing.
It's um, what they're doing is tantamount to monopoly, it's tantamount to take over the airwaves, cant let it happen, otherwise we're not going to have a democracy were not going to have anything to do with the republic. Finally I am directing my administration to develop policies and procedures to ensure tax payer dollars do not go in social media company that repress free speech."
He added; "The choices that Twitter makes what it chooses to suppress, edit, black-list, shadow, ban are editorial decisions, pure and simple. In those moments Twitter ceases to be a mutual platform and they become an editor with a view point and I think that we can saw that about others also, whether you're looking at Google or you're looking at Facebook, perhaps others. One egregious example is when they try to silence views that they disagree with by selectively applying a Fact Check, fact-check; F, A, C, T, fact check.
What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or even promote is nothing more than a political activism group or political activism and it's inappropriate. If you look at what's happened, if you look at where they're going, if look at where they're coming from, I think you all see it yourselves. This censorship and bias is a threat to freedom itself. Imagine if your phone company silenced or edited your conversation social media comp are vastly more reach and power than any phone company in the unites states, more reach than your newspapers by far, more reach than a lot of your traditional forms of communication."
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people
In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
The bill went on to state the fore mentioned statement by President Trump and then added;
At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.
This ends section 1 of the bill, where all 8 sections can be found here along with the full statement that the president intended to produce.
Comments