Trump vs. Twitter: Here’s what you need to know about the free speech showdown

President Donald Trump has been annoyed about social networks. Now he’s tweeting more than angry about his displeasure with them. Trump signed one on Thursday top command The aim is to limit the legal protection that protects Facebook, Twitter and other online companies from liability for content published by their users.

“When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions that they disagree with, they exercise a dangerous power,” he said top command says. “They no longer function as passive bulletin boards and should be viewed and treated as content creators.”

The unusual move comes after Twitter described two of Trump’s tweets via mail-in ballots as “potentially misleading information about voting processes”. Twitter’s action appears to have been a turning point in a long-tense relationship between conservatives and social media companies. Republicans say their speech is censored by Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites, although companies have repeatedly denied participating in such censorship. Now these tensions have reached new heights.

On Friday, the argument took a different turn than Twitter hid a tweet overnight a label from the president stating that it violates the company’s “glorify violence” rules. The tweet can still be displayed when someone clicks on a link in the label, according to Twitter’s determination that “it is in the public interest” that the post is still accessible.

Here’s what you need to know about the debate about speaking on social media.

Why is Trump tracking social media companies?

Trump has accused social networks of censorship in the past conservative speech. He also passed this complaint on to people. Last year, its administration has launched a website where social media users can share information with the government if they believe their accounts have been blocked, blocked or reported due to political bias. He also held a “Social media summit“at the White House in 2019, which drew media figures popular in conservative circles.

Attempts to sue technology companies for allegations of political bias have been unsuccessful. This week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit accusing Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple of conspiring to suppress conservative views and violate the first change.

Currently running:
Look at that:

Trump issues the order to stop the alleged “untested power” …

2:03

For the most part, social networks have dealt with Trump’s posts without problems, as they are often viewed as current. But on May 26, Twitter first checked Trump’s tweets and added a label that raised questions about the accuracy of his comments. The president tweeted that postal ballot papers were not “anything but fraudulent,” an allegation exposed by news agencies and fact-checkers. Trump, who has more than 80 million followers, also incorrectly stated that California will send postal ballot papers to everyone in the state if only registered voters receive ballot papers.

A label appeared under both tweets that read, “Get the facts on mail-in ballots.” Clicking the warning will direct people to a page Experts explain that postal ballot papers are very rarely associated with election fraud.

“We believe these tweets could confuse voters about what they need to do to get a ballot and take part in the election process,” Twitter said in a statement. Trump’s comments on mail-in ballots also appeared in a Facebook post, but Facebook didn’t flag them. The company typically doesn’t send politicians’ posts to fact checkers, arguing that their speech is already under scrutiny. Facebook employees, many of whom work from home due to the coronavirus pandemic, staged a virtual strike on Monday to criticize her employer for his mostly straightforward approach to political content.

Trump was obviously not satisfied with Twitter’s actions. The company had shown that the allegations of political prejudice were correct, and it tweeted that it was doing a “big deal”. Then came the executive order.

What does Trump’s executive order do?

The executive order focuses on Section 230 of the Communications Decency ActThis protects Facebook, Twitter and other online companies from liability for content published by their users. The law helps prevent these companies from being charged with moderating content on their websites. Social networks have different rules for what users are allowed to publish, except for content such as harassment, hate speech, and violent threats. They also have different approaches to political advertising.

There are some exceptions under the law. For example, a company could continue to be held responsible for knowingly allowing users to post illegal content such as child pornography.

Trump’s executive regulation aims to reinterpret the law through new regulations. Online businesses that don’t moderate their websites in “good faith” could face more lawsuits.

The ordinance instructs the Department of Commerce to request the Federal Communications Commission to propose a regulation that clarifies if a company is not acting in good faith. This includes when a company decides to restrict access to content but its actions are inconsistent with its terms of use or are taken without proper notice or a “meaningful opportunity to be heard”.

In essence, the Trump administration argues that Twitter is not protected by section 230 if the president’s tweets are flagged.

The ordinance also instructs government officials to review federal spending on online advertising. It urges the Federal Trade Commission to consider taking action against Internet companies for Section 230 practices and to consider publishing a report on complaints about political bias. According to the order, Attorney General William Barr would work with attorneys general to investigate allegations of political bias.

In one Set of tweets On Friday, the president continued to criticize Twitter and demand regulation of social media companies. “Section 230 should be revoked by Congress.”

Does the implementing regulation have legal limits?

Some experts say the order is only political theater and will likely face legal challenges. Both the FTC and the FCC are independent agencies, so it is up to them to take action.

Experts also say that the FCC would likely be challenged in court if it imposed rules. Ernesto Falcon, senior legal adviser to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the Communications Decency Act should determine who, and for what reasons, may or may not be sued. The law has no language that empowers the FCC or any other federal agency to limit the opportunities an online company can have.

It is still unclear whether the FCC will propose a new regulation. “This debate is important. The Federal Communications Commission will carefully review all requests for regulation from the Department of Commerce,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai in a statement.

Marty Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, tweeted that “it is difficult to imagine that the FCC will do anything,” and the FTC is likely to ignore it.

Robert McDowell, a former Republican commissioner with the FCC, said in one Tweet that the order would violate the protection of a private company under the first change. “This voice control is unconstitutional,” McDowell tweeted, adding that the FCC president could not grant new legal authority.

ACLU Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane said the order could also harm Trump because if platforms aren’t protected from legal liability for what their users post, they could be more aggressive when it comes to contentious content, including contributions from the President.

“Congress and the administration should remember well that Section 230 is critical to protecting Internet freedom of speech. The law allows platforms to publish all types of content without fear of liability.” , she said. “As Donald Trump apparently forgot, this includes his own tweets – even if they contain lies.”

What do social media companies think about ordering?

Facebook and Google, who oppose allegations of political bias, are already voicing concerns about the order.

A Facebook spokeswoman said that removing or restricting section 230 would limit the online language.

“Exposing companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say would punish companies that allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to censor anything that could offend someone,” she said.

A Google spokeswoman said in a statement that “undermining Section 230 would damage the American economy and its global leadership in freedom of the Internet.”

Twitter declined to comment.

What’s next?

Trump’s executive order is just the tip of the iceberg.

U.S. lawmakers are currently drafting laws to deprive online businesses of legal protection for user contributions. Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri and Rep. Matt Gaetz from Florida, both Republicans, are working on separate bills.

“If @Twitter wants to edit and comment on user contributions, it should be separated from its special status under federal law (section 230) and forced to play according to the same rules as all other publishers,” Hawley tweeted. “Fair is fair.”

Trump also said during Thursday’s signing that he is considering closing social media sites like Twitter, although he doesn’t know how he would do it.

“I would have to ask the lawyers. I would have to go to court,” Trump said. “If it could be shut down legally, I would.”

CNET’s Maggie Reardon contributed to this report.