Take away their platform exemption as they are acting like a publisher, then wish their private company good luck But seriously of all his things to fact check, they fact checked an opinion, by linking to another opinion that's based on things that are verifiably untrue?
Here's a draft: https://techfreedom.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf
Question for smarter legal minds- Wouldn't Trump have been better off just filing a personal lawsuit that would have jammed up Twitter, and put a longer delay in a legal battle getting hung up in the courts? By going the Executive Order route, can't any federal judge step in a put a stop to the order? Of course the White House can appeal, and appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, but Twitter having the lower courts siding with them all the way up to the Supreme Court certainly works to their benefit. I mean we all know this is just a reality show tactic to get the media to stop talking about the 100,000 souls that were lost due to Trump's incompetence to take a pandemic seriously, but still.
Not sure where to put this, so I'll leave it here: Federal Appeals Court Says Facebook, Twitter Aren't Conspiring to Suppress Conservative Views more at the link https://gizmodo.com/federal-appeals-court-says-facebook-twitter-arent-cons-1843711795
Honestly, I think "The Social Network 2" will be a much more damning portrayal of Zuckerberg. He wont be taking his staff out to the movie theatre for a field trip to go watch that one.
When will conservatives grow a spine and flush this turd down the toilet? Trump ***** on everything they claim to represent and is showing to everyone that they really have no American values at all.
Just a thought ... The Criminal in Chief could invoke the Defense Production Act and force Twitter to produce less ... censorship. Remember that the Criminal in Chief invoke a "state of emergency" at the border, to justify troops and to divert DoD monies to build his wall.
Trump's Executive Order on Twitter Is a Total Mess: "And make no mistake: the draft order, when it manages to be coherent, is insanely unconstitutional. "But maybe the order having teeth isn't the point here. Trump's mandate might not hold up in court, but just by issuing it, Trump sends a not-so-subtle threat to Twitter, Facebook, and other internet companies. Remember, the apparent impetus for this order was Twitter posting a fact check after one of Trump's tweets." https://reason.com/2020/05/28/trumps-executive-order-on-twitter-is-a-total-mess/
They won't. The decent conservatives turned on Trump during election season or in the 1st year of his presidency. Those people I respect. The ones that are continuing to support him now throughout all of this, are either brainwashed for good or just evil. Neither one is any better than the other.
The Trump Executive Order and the Section 230 Option To “Strongly Regulate” Social Media: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/...230-option-to-strongly-regulate-social-media/ excerpt: For those of us who teach torts, Section 230 has been a long controversy in its shielding of companies from liability in defamation and other lawsuits. As I write today in my Hill column, Twitter is dangerously wrong in its action against the Trump tweets and Trump is right that this represents a serious attack on free speech. However, I was also critical of the threat to “shut down” or “strongly regulate” media companies. Putting the retaliatory language aside, this is not a change that will likely succeed without congressional action. However, there are some legitimate questions that Congress should consider while, in my view, erring on the side of protecting free speech. President Trump is directing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to propose and clarify regulations under Section 230. Specifically, section 230 protects social media platforms from liability over what users post or share. *** There are therefore long-standing and legitimate objections to Section 230 where sites like Twitter demand immunity as a passive provider but then assumed an active role in the discussion. However, the priority should be the protection of the Internet and social media as a forum for free speech. If Twitter could refrain from such interventions, it serves an important function as a platform for free ideas and exchange. The problem is that Democrats like former Vice President Joe Biden have called for the elimination of Section 230 in its entirety — an extreme action that could fundamentally change public discourse in this country. That is why my column strongly encourages Twitter to admit its error and return to neutrality. Instead, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey has doubled down on an indefensible and dangerous decision on the Trump tweets. The result could be an assault not just on social media but free speech.
There would be riots in the street. While we're waiting for one of those to show up, I'll point out the EO Section 2 instructs the Secretary of Commerce within 30 days to petition the FCC to do a rulemaking. You know how long that's going to take? Not only will Trump not be President anymore, Biden might not be President anymore either. Commerce will make the petition before the election, but the FCC will schedule a hearing for it, which they'll probably want to do after the election if they can get away with it. Unless Trump is leaning on them, they'll probably want to reject the petition because they don't really want to police the internet. But if they need to accept it for political reasons they'll put it on the docket. Once on the docket, they'll ask Staff to draft rules. They'll get at least 6 months to do that, spitballing. Then there will be a comment period of several more months. In the comment period, all the lawyers and lobbyists for all the tech firms, media firms, political nonprofits, citizens with too much time on their hands, etc, will submit long, researched papers on what it good and bad about the rules, what needs changing and whether it needs to be rejected altogether. Then Staff will write final rules and there will be another comment period. Then the commissioners will vote on whether to adopt, amend, or reject the rules. Then they'll be sued by whatever commercial interests feel like they were hurt by the rulemaking. None of this even happens if Trump loses the election, but it mostly won't even be in effect during his administration even it makes it all the way through the process.
Trump’s Illiberal Fairness Doctrine: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/trumps-illiberal-fairness-doctrine/ excerpt: No one should be fooled. This would be an Obama-style executive abuse, meant not to “clarify” but to circumvent the will and intent of the legislative branch for partisan reasons. Section 230 wasn’t passed to regulate fairness or neutrality of political speech on platforms — a nebulous and unenforceable demand, even if it had been — but to allow websites to deal with online indecency.
