[1A] The Free Speech Thread

[ArcadiaGP]

Twitter doubling down

 

[jamil]

Twitter doubling down

Oh. Cool. Now do Kathy Griffin.

 

[chipbennett]

Oh. Cool. Now do Kathy Griffin.

This is really, really foolish territory for Twitter. They are on the razor's edge of kissing section 230 protection goodbye.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://twitter.com/EliLake/status/1266325948649082880

Facebook’s approach is correct on “fact checking.” Twitter’s approach is foolish. There is no way to make it non-partisan, and checking the president’s facts is what the press does. It would be nice to rebuild a consensus that the best antidote to false speech is true speech

 

[jamil]

https://twitter.com/EliLake/status/1266325948649082880

Okay. I read through a lot of that thread. It reminded my why I've been staying off Twitter. It is poison. People are insane when drugged with twitter.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Okay. I read through a lot of that thread. It reminded my why I've been staying off Twitter. It is poison. People are insane when drugged with twitter.

Ain't wrong, though. Let the people police themselves and decide what is right and what isn't. Politicians will always lie, and Twitter will not apply this rule evenly. Let the counter-positions point out those lies.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I'm 100% done with publishers who claim platform status and protection. Want to be a platform? Then you don't get a say in user content. Want to be a publisher (by curating and editing content - and by choosing what content to edit/curate and what content not to)? Then you can be exposed to legal liability for the ramifications of your actions as a publisher.

This is where I’m at with it. Big Tech has to pick one. Can’t have it both ways.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Ted Cruz and Charles C W Cooke now discussing this

Cruz: CNN can be sued for defamation. Why should Twitter be immune?

CCWC: But this is false. Twitter is immune from being sued for things that *third parties* say on its website; Twitter is not immune from being sued for things *Twitter* says. This is also true for CNN, which can be sued for its speech, but not its commenters’.

Cruz: Ok, Charles, you want a legal debate. Cool.

If you (3rd Party) write an op-ed in NYT & it’s defamatory, NYT can be sued.

If you post identical defamatory op-ed on Twitter or FB, they can’t be sued—that’s sec 230.

Congress did that bc they were “neutral.” Now, they censor.

CCWC: The NYT can be sued if it commissions, reads, edits, and then publishes your op-ed, yes. But it cannot be sued if you write the same words in its comments section. Nor does the liability attached to those comments transfer to the Times if it responds. Moreover, the NYT is permitted to delete your comments as it sees fit—without losing the liability shield that attached to them. If it responds to them, or flags them, it is liable for its own words, but not for the third party's. This is also true of Twitter. You wrote that Twitter is "immune." It is not. It is immune from liability for third-party content that it did not see prior to publication, just as the New York Times is. If Twitter libels you, @tedcruz, it's liable, as is the Times. The rules apply equally to both. What you are doing here, @tedcruz, is similar to what Hillary Clinton does when she says that the PLCAA prevents gun manufacturers from being sued per se. It does not. It prevents them from being sued for the unapproved actions of third parties. That's Section 230, too. (Also, Cruz says that "Congress did that because they were 'neutral.'" This isn't true. Section 230 applies to National Review as equally as to The Nation. The purveyor does not have to be "neutral"; the question centers on the sort of speech, not its content.)

Cruz: Interesting theory, but false. All NYT has to do to be liable is make the editorial judgment to publish. The rest that you list (commissioning, editing, etc.) are not required.

Big Tech used to be neutral, allowing free speech. Now, they shadow ban & decide what to publish.

 

[Phase2]

Ain't wrong, though. Let the people police themselves and decide what is right and what isn't. Politicians will always lie, and Twitter will not apply this rule evenly. Let the counter-positions point out those lies.

Big Tech used to be neutral, allowing free speech. Now, they shadow ban & decide what to publish.

Hence why things have now come to a head. Big Tech has placed [STRIKE]their thumb[/STRIKE]large weight on one side of the scale and try to hide it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

it’s a little bizarre that people who routinely tweet outright lies think it would be a good thing if twitter could be held liable for allowing lies to be posted

There's a legitimate pro-free-speech argument that Section 230 should be changed to make platforms such as Twitter more of a content-neutral common carrier. As I've said repeatedly, however, I've yet to hear a way to do this without creating more problems than you solve. The anti-free-speech case for 230 revision makes some sense if you're trying to stamp out, say, child porn. But "Twitter should not be able to publish libelous Tweets" is a terrible argument.

Put another way, if I have a blog, and I have open comments, CDA § 230 means, generally, that I can't be held liable for my commenters' posts.

It doesn't mean that my blog has to be nonpartisan and a-political! A law like that would violate my First Amendment rights. If Congress were to eliminate CDA § 230, then websites like Twitter could be held liable for defamatory content posted by users, like Trump.

Which means that to protect itself Twitter would have to delete Trump's account, and probably the accounts of 99% of the rest of us.

(This was all only ever about Trump using the power of government to suppress free speech. And yes, conservatives, I see some of you defending Trump in this. You were always faking.)

.

 

[T.Lex]

So, some "conservatives" defended Trump's use of his executive power to ban bumpstocks and are now defending the use of executive power to interfere in private business.

If this is an important policy issue, let the legislative branch handle it. That's the branch that passed the law in the first place. Let's have the policy discussion on amending it.

Or let an authoritarian who campaigned on the notion that the 1A might not be very important push to further limit it.

The question isn't really whether the balance could be better struck [ that's open for debate. For me, the issue is that this isn't the way to do it. This further centralization of power in the executive branch.

 

[KLB]

Those people don't get it.

 

[chipbennett]

So, some "conservatives" defended Trump's use of his executive power to ban bumpstocks and are now defending the use of executive power to interfere in private business.

If this is an important policy issue, let the legislative branch handle it. That's the branch that passed the law in the first place. Let's have the policy discussion on amending it.

Or let an authoritarian who campaigned on the notion that the 1A might not be very important push to further limit it.

The question isn't really whether the balance could be better struck [ that's open for debate. For me, the issue is that this isn't the way to do it. This further centralization of power in the executive branch.

We should at least frame the issues properly.

1. Trump did not ban bump stocks through an executive order. The ATF, acting under the shadow-government authority of the Administrative State, banned bump stocks by fiat.

2. Twitter is not a private business. It is a) a publicly traded business, that b) claims section 230 protection from liability as a content platform.

What part of Trump's EO actively interferes with Twitter's business, anyway? I have seen excerpts of a "leaked" EO, but I haven't seen the wording of the EO actually signed. So, I am asking, not challenging.

The appropriateness of the action depends on what is actually being done. If the EO merely serves to interpret the execution of federal statute, then Trump is acting within his constitutional purview as head of the Executive branch. If the EO serves to enact new law, then he is not.

 

[jamil]

Ain't wrong, though. Let the people police themselves and decide what is right and what isn't. Politicians will always lie, and Twitter will not apply this rule evenly. Let the counter-positions point out those lies.

It’s wrong in that all they’re doing is bickering. They’re not having the kind of conversation where the best ideas win. The only winning in those conversations is who gets the best zing in 280 characters. That conversation, for example. Did people from either side say, you know, you brought up a point I hadn’t thought of. Maybe you’re right about that.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

1. Trump did not ban bump stocks through an executive order. The ATF, acting under the shadow-government authority of the Administrative State, banned bump stocks by fiat.

Bwuh? I recall Trump being the one that derided bumpstocks, and ultimately encouraged it. Why deflect off of him to something as shaky as "shadow-gov authority"...? Would it have happened without Trump's initiating it?

2. Twitter is not a private business. It is a) a publicly traded business, that b) claims section 230 protection from liability as a content platform.

What part of Trump's EO actively interferes with Twitter's business, anyway? I have seen excerpts of a "leaked" EO, but I haven't seen the wording of the EO actually signed. So, I am asking, not challenging.

The appropriateness of the action depends on what is actually being done. If the EO merely serves to interpret the execution of federal statute, then Trump is acting within his constitutional purview as head of the Executive branch. If the EO serves to enact new law, then he is not.

This is one of those ChipBennett "technically he's allowed to do it" things, without arguing if he should or not, or if what may be done (when we know it) is, in good faith, pro-1A.

 

[chipbennett]

Bwuh? I recall Trump being the one that derided bumpstocks, and ultimately encouraged it. Why deflect off of him to something as shaky as "shadow-gov authority"...? Would it have happened without Trump's initiating it?

The ATF rule change was certainly enacted under the direction and approval of Trump. Because the difference matters, as does the remedy. The end result is wrong, either way, certainly. But the EO did not ban bump stocks. It instead directed ATF to reconsider the rule. The action was carried out under the auspices of the Administrative State (extra-constitutional autonomy given to government bureaucrats to determine how to "interpret" and "implement" federal statutes).

This is one of those ChipBennett "technically he's allowed to do it" things, without arguing if he should or not, or if what may be done (when we know it) is, in good faith, pro-1A.

One could argue, potentially, that his actions advance free speech (which I care about more than the first amendment, which merely constrains the government from infringing upon the right of free speech). As I have posted earlier in this thread: protecting the free exercise of rights of the individual is the prime purpose for government.

Whether Trump's approach is good or bad, correct or incorrect - I don't know, because I haven't yet read the EO. The excerpt I saw "leaked" only said that the government would build a list of complaints of free speech violation allegations. If there's more teeth than that, I'm all ears.

 

[jamil]

So, some "conservatives" defended Trump's use of his executive power to ban bumpstocks and are now defending the use of executive power to interfere in private business.

If this is an important policy issue, let the legislative branch handle it. That's the branch that passed the law in the first place. Let's have the policy discussion on amending it.

Or let an authoritarian who campaigned on the notion that the 1A might not be very important push to further limit it.

The question isn't really whether the balance could be better struck [ that's open for debate. For me, the issue is that this isn't the way to do it. This further centralization of power in the executive branch.

The legislative branch ceded much of the power to regulate to the executive branch. I kinda think the FCC may have some jurisdiction to do this. I’m not saying that’s the right way to do it. I’m saying that outside of ruling in favor of partisan outcomes, I see a way that this would be ruled as constitutional. That’s just a function the reality of were we are now.

Also, people keep oversimplifying this as an issue of private business, which it is at least that, but it’s also more than just that. I think the fairness doctrine was a correct policy that sought a similar goal, to prevent private companies (the media) from subverting the public opinion. And that’s what we have going on now. I don’t want the government to take sides. But I don’t think it’s wrong for the government to require these “public square” platforms to deal fairly with people who provide content and consume content, especially when these companies have the power to control public opinion, and especially determine outcomes of elections. For democracy and liberty to survive, it requires an honest, or at least a fair public square.

 

[T.Lex]

@chip
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

This is just part of the preamble:

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.

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.

In other words, "They aren't saying what I think they should be saying."

In terms of substance:

When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
...
To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify: [stuff and other stuff]

Just like he told the ATF to ban bumpstocks, he's telling the FCC to do this.

The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

He's dropping the full weight of the DOJ on the investigation of things. Ever been through a DOJ investigation? It ain't cheap, even if you aren't the target.

For democracy and liberty to survive, it requires an honest, or at least a fair public square.

In the free market context, it really doesn't. If a market is being underserved, a competitor will come along. Let the market pick the winners and losers.

People make their own decisions.

And, this opens up some GREAT tools for future Democratic Socialist elected presidents.

ETA:
Let's not forget his campaign included vague promises about changing the 1A. Here's his follow-through.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

And, this opens up some GREAT tools for future Democratic Socialist elected presidents.

Timely, I have a new signature.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

@chip
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/

This is just part of the preamble:


In other words, "They aren't saying what I think they should be saying."

In terms of substance:


Just like he told the ATF to ban bumpstocks, he's telling the FCC to do this.



He's dropping the full weight of the DOJ on the investigation of things. Ever been through a DOJ investigation? It ain't cheap, even if you aren't the target.



In the free market context, it really doesn't. If a market is being underserved, a competitor will come along. Let the market pick the winners and losers.

People make their own decisions.

And, this opens up some GREAT tools for future Democratic Socialist elected presidents.

ETA:
Let's not forget his campaign included vague promises about changing the 1A. Here's his follow-through.

This sounds good in theory, but who would be big enough to do this? It's like saying, "Don't like Microsoft or Apple? You're free to start your own tech company." Or maybe, "Don't like Comcast? You're free to start your own cable company." In the real world, it's not that simple at this point. The big boys (including Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) came along and got in on the ground floor so to speak. Now they've gotten so big as to effectively create barriers to entry into that market.