10

Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order

31 comments, 217 views, posted 8:50 pm 12/08/2019 in Politics by griffin
griffin has 15572 posts, 2187 threads, 539 points

Leaked Draft of Trump Executive Order to 'Censor the Internet' Denounced as Dangerous, Unconstitutional Edict

"In practice, this executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet."

byJon Queally, staff writer

Civil liberties groups are warning of a major threat to online freedoms and First Amendment rights if a leaked draft of a Trump administration edict—dubbed by critics as a "Censor the Internet" executive order that would give powerful federal agencies far-reaching powers to pick and choose which kind of Internet material is and is not acceptable—is allowed to go into effect.

According to CNN, which obtained a copy of the draft, the new rule "calls for the FCC to develop new regulations clarifying how and when the law protects social media websites when they decide to remove or suppress content on their platforms. Although still in its early stages and subject to change, the Trump administration's draft order also calls for the Federal Trade Commission to take those new policies into account when it investigates or files lawsuits against misbehaving companies."

While Politico was the first to report how the draft was being circulated by the White House, CNN notes that if put into effect, "the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit."

Following reporting on the leaked draft, free speech and online advocacy groups raised alarm about the troubling and far-reaching implications of the Trump plan if it was put into effect by executive decree.

"It's hard to put into words how mind bogglingly absurd this executive order is," said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, in a tweet. "In the name of defending free speech it would allow mass government censorship of online content. In practice, it means whichever party is in power can decide what speech is allowed on the internet."

PEN America, which defends the free expression for writers, journalists, and others, warned that any executive order based on this draft rule would be an unconstitutional "anti-American edict."

As detailed in an action alert put out by Fight for the Future over the weekend:

[The] leaked documents show that the Trump administration is drafting an executive order that, if upheld by the courts, could essentially end free speech on the Internet. The draft order would put the FTC and the FCC, headed by its notoriously corrupt chairman Ajit Pai, in charge of monitoring and policing online speech on social media platforms, online forums, and more.

It would give these bureaucratic government agencies unprecedented control over how Internet platforms moderate speech by allowing them to revoke the essential protections Congress laid out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). CDA 230 is the basic law that makes it possible for online platforms to let users post our own content, and to make basic decisions about what types of content they as private entities want to host. Every meme, every social media post, every blog and user-created video on the Internet has been made possible by this crucial free speech protection.

In practice, this executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet. If the government doesn't like the way a private company is moderating content, they can shut their entire website down.

"These leaks about a potential Executive Order from the White House are troubling on many levels, from the order's potential to violate the First Amendment, to its apparent disregard for the independence of agencies like the FCC and the FTC, to its intent to unilaterally limit Section 230 which promotes moderated online communities free of hate speech and misinformation," said Chris Lewis, president and CEO of Public Knowledge.

"If these reports are a trial balloon from the White House," Lewis added, "then it's time to pop it."

While the Trump administration has tried to argue the new order is a tool to keep web platforms from censoring online speech, Fight for the Future warns "this plan would create terrifying new censorship powers for the government to do just that."

Hit it up and smack it down at RL

Extra Points Given by:

tricpe (5), tamsnod27 (5)

Comments

0
9:09 pm 12/08/2019

griffin

Remember when republicans pretended to be upset about executive orders?

Seems so long ago now, doesn't it?

0
10:03 pm 12/08/2019

REALITY

The big socials are quite happily destroying free speech all by themselves, fuck'em, let FTC and the FCC screw them into the dirt.

1
10:30 pm 12/08/2019

griffin

Quote by REALITY:
The big socials are quite happily destroying free speech all by themselves


That's funny, they are neither the purveyors nor guarantors of free speech. I wonder how they could possibly manage to do that?
Maybe some people think free speech is the freedom to say what you like on youtube or facebook?

Quote by REALITY:
uck'em, let FTC and the FCC screw them into the dirt.


Gee whizz, but I think the ones getting screwed will be the people.

BTW, you somehow made its sound like you are okay with people losing their freedoms and getting shafted by the government if they have pissed you off.

3
10:46 pm 12/08/2019

Vormid

Quote by REALITY:
The big socials are quite happily destroying free speech all by themselves, fuck'em, let FTC and the FCC screw them into the dirt.



So the big socials are private institutions who by their nature allowed to moderate their sites as they see fit. Sort of like you. This behavior while sometimes shitty does not fall under the 1st Amendment. Whereas the government impeding free speech does.

2
10:49 pm 12/08/2019

mynameis

The poor mega corps are being oppressed.

1
11:04 pm 12/08/2019

REALITY

Quote by Vormid:
Sort of like you.

The difference is I don't ban people for their opinion, I ban them if they are being an ass. So most importantly, nothing in Section 230 should permit deplatforming of people based on political ideology, offline or offsite conduct.

0
11:11 pm 12/08/2019

griffin

Quote by mynameis:
The poor mega corps are being oppressed.


The poor mega corps have a right to freedom of speech.

Quote by REALITY:
The difference is I don't ban people for their opinion, I ban them if they are being an ass.


This isn't about you. The government's job is to protect freedom of speech, not limit it. Youtube telling some neo-nazi jackwads to go fuck themselves is in fact youtube exercising their freedom of speech. That is how freedom of speech works.

Youtube and hollywood and Jimmy Bloody Kimmel can say what they like, and so can I.

Look who the real snowflakes turned out to be. Ruh-Roh! It was old grumpy Mr. Trump and his minions all along!

2
11:29 pm 12/08/2019

mynameis

Quote by griffin:
The poor mega corps have a right to freedom of speech.


You all for corporate personhood, then? Because I'm not.

1
11:40 pm 12/08/2019

REALITY

Quote by griffin:
is in fact youtube exercising their freedom of speech

They are not telling them though are they , they are deplatforming them I'd more equate that more to a kick in the nuts.

0
11:40 pm 12/08/2019

griffin

Quote by mynameis:
You all for corporate personhood, then? Because I'm not.


This isn't about corporate personhood.

1
11:43 pm 12/08/2019

griffin

Quote by REALITY:
They are not telling them though are they , they are deplatforming them I'd more equate that more to a kick in the nuts.


I don't care. Couldn't give two rat's arses. Boo-hoo, little fascist boi can't post on youtube no more. Lovely.

No one is stopping them from starting up einreichvideo.com and posting there. That's freedom of speech.

1
11:51 pm 12/08/2019

mynameis

Quote by griffin:
Quote by mynameis:
You all for corporate personhood, then? Because I'm not.

This isn't about corporate personhood.


Yeah it must be the other inalienable rights that paper thin concepts like corporations totally have.

1
11:54 pm 12/08/2019

Vormid

Quote by mynameis:
Quote by griffin:
Quote by mynameis:
You all for corporate personhood, then? Because I'm not.

This isn't about corporate personhood.

Yeah it must be the other inalienable rights that paper thin concepts like corporations totally have.

So corporations should have no rights? Are you arguing that the state should run\control\regulate them? My how times change.

1
11:55 pm 12/08/2019

griffin

Quote by mynameis:
Yeah it must be the other inalienable rights that paper thin concepts like corporations totally have.


Lesson up: griffin enterprises can deny or permit access to it's platform whether or not it is incorporated. Ditto griffin and Sons, griffin and Partners, etc. No incorporation required.

It is not about corporate personhood, get it now?

1
11:58 pm 12/08/2019

griffin

Quote by Vormid:
So corporations should have no rights?


Perhaps mynameis is subtly arguing that corporations should not pay taxes, since that is something that only humans do.

0
11:59 pm 12/08/2019

REALITY

Quote by griffin:
Quote by REALITY:
They are not telling them though are they , they are deplatforming them I'd more equate that more to a kick in the nuts.

I don't care. Couldn't give two rat's arses. Boo-hoo, little fascist boi can't post on youtube no more. Lovely.

No one is stopping them from starting up einreichvideo.com and posting there. That's freedom of speech.

You're scared of being censored by government but not some private corporation? Man you're fucked.

1
12:01 am 13/08/2019

Vormid

Quote by REALITY:
Man you're fucked.



Yeah when you are arguing for regulation and I am arguing against it, we know we're all fucked.

0
12:06 am 13/08/2019

Vormid

Circa 2009

Last month, a writer for the conservative American Spectator talked about "the whiff of fascism" emanating from the White House over the pressure on the head of General Motors, Richard Wagoner, to quit. He was not alone. In a recent Washington Post column, the conservative writer Charles Krauthammer, served up an echo of this view, opining: "Some find in this descent into large-scale industrial policy a whiff of 1930s-style fascist corporatism," before adding – with the most weasely of disavowals – that he "has his doubts".

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/09/barack-obama-fascism-liberalism-blogosphere

I wonder what they say about Mr. Trump. *swoon* "My Hero!"

1
12:06 am 13/08/2019

griffin

Quote by REALITY:
You're scared of being censored by government but not some private corporation?


Twitter can't censor me, because I don't use it. I couldn't give two shits if FB boots me.

You are clearly not thinking this through. I can dump youtube or whatever. That is not a problem. I can't dump the government, and if you want to see what government censorship looks like, well Nazi Germany, the USSR, and modern day China spring to mind.

Social media is neither here nor there, and even thundering crypto-nazi blowhard dickwads like breitbart don't excite me. None of them can do the merest scintilla of harm compared to what the government can do.

Quote by REALITY:
You're scared of being censored by government but not some private corporation?


So yeah, bang on, dead right, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

0
12:09 am 13/08/2019

REALITY

Quote by Vormid:
Quote by REALITY:
Man you're fucked.


Yeah when you are arguing for regulation and I am arguing against it, we know we're all fucked.

I'm not arguing for regulation, I'm arguing that they are forcing regulation upon themselves. I'm all for decentralisation free internet how it should be, you won't find any way of blocking someone on Teoti.

0
12:13 am 13/08/2019

REALITY

Quote by griffin:
Quote by REALITY:
You're scared of being censored by government but not some private corporation?

Twitter can't censor me, because I don't use it. I couldn't give two shits if FB boots me.

You are clearly not thinking this through. I can dump youtube or whatever. That is not a problem. I can't dump the government, and if you want to see what government censorship looks like, well Nazi Germany, the USSR, and modern day China spring to mind.

Social media is neither here nor there, and even thundering crypto-nazi blowhard dickwads like breitbart don't excite me. None of them can do the merest scintilla of harm compared to what the government can do.

Quote by REALITY:
You're scared of being censored by government but not some private corporation?

So yeah, bang on, dead right, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

See above.

0
12:22 am 13/08/2019

griffin

Quote by REALITY:
I'm not arguing for regulation,


Quote by REALITY:
let FTC and the FCC screw them into the dirt.


0
12:23 am 13/08/2019

REALITY

Quote by REALITY:
I'm arguing that they are forcing regulation upon themselves.


0
12:29 am 13/08/2019

mynameis

Quote by Vormid:
So corporations should have no rights? Are you arguing that the state should run\control\regulate them? My how times change.


They have no inalienable rights, no. They are allowed certain protections that could be changed or taken away at any time.
Run? I wouldn't want that but they are already controlled and regulated.

Quote by griffin:
Lesson up: griffin enterprises can deny or permit access to it's platform whether or not it is incorporated. Ditto griffin and Sons, griffin and Partners, etc. No incorporation required.

It is not about corporate personhood, get it now?


Within regulatory limits. And that's not speech.

Quote by griffin:
Perhaps mynameis is subtly arguing that corporations should not pay taxes, since that is something that only humans do.


Corporations pay what they're told to pay or they're not allowed to do business. Yes, enforced by The State.

0
12:36 am 13/08/2019

griffin

Quote by mynameis:
And that's not speech.


Courts say otherwise. See: AOH versus various lgbtq groups.

Deciding what kind of message you are sending is free speech.

Add Comment

via teoti, or register to add a comment!