OK, I guess this is happening. Here’s what’s in the “Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship” issued today, May 28th, in the year 2020, which I would say cannot get any dumber, and yet it will.
The Executive Order purports to be issued under the Constitution. Put a pin in that.
Section 1 contains adjectives about freedom of speech (“long cherished,” “sacred”) indicating respect for it but appears to be written by folks who have not met the First Amendment, which actually prevents the government from constraining speech, not private companies.
“When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.” Just wait. It gets thicker.
Someone who is familiar with the First Amendment must have chimed in by paragraph 3, which says “The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the 1A to modern communications technology.”
Then we start naming names: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, which have the power to “control what people see or do not see.”
The President states he has made clear his commitment to free and open debate on the internet. If you have receipts on this, I humbly ask that you share them.
Then it gets to the point: “Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.”
I swear to you, I am not making this up: “As recently as last week, Rep. Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.”
Now we have many adjectives about the way online platforms make decisions and lots on the talking point that Rep. Stefanik and others have been pushing about the Chinese Communist Party. (I think FB’s relationship with China is highly problematic and unrelated to this Order)
Section 2 tells us that it is the “policy of the United States” to clarify the immunity granted by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act.
If that is so, one might think Congress would be doing this work instead of the Executive. I believe the legislature making laws is the “policy of the United States” as expressed in the Constitution.
The Order then turns to read like a legal opinion in which a judge is trying to explain to us what the law ought to mean while telling us it already means this, but announcing that now it really does.
The gist is: these companies shouldn’t have the broad immunity they have today so we’re going to take it away.
It directs the Secretary of Commerce to file a petition for rulemaking with the FCC requesting proposed regulations to clarify the statute—which could mean that this order will die in the details, as it should.
Section 3 really takes the cake. It is entitled “Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms that Restrict Free Speech.” It directs every federal agency to review its spending on online platforms...
report their findings to the OMB, and review the “viewpoint-based speech restrictions” imposed by the platforms. Basically, the US government isn’t going to give any more ad revenue to online platforms if they fact-check the President.
Section 4 threatens online platforms with actions by the Federal Trade Commission for unfair or deceptive acts and requires the FTC to “consider developing a report” about this topic. (Who would like to place bets on how quickly the FTC takes this task up?)
Section 5 instructs the attorney general to enlist state attorneys general to get it on this action under state law and takes another shot at the Chinese Communist Party.
Section 6 says the AG should go ahead and write some laws that could be proposed to effectuate this order, perhaps recognizing that this Executive Order is trying to legislate.
Section 7 says “online platform” means “any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.” They cannot possibly understand the scope of this definition.
Section 8 includes general provisions that tell us, in plain language, none of this actually means anything.
Look, there are mannnnny issues that need to be sorted out related to social media. Many. This is an absurd, petty, ridiculous way to do it, and to do it at this time...well...
