Photo: Ron Sachs/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images
When Donald Trump faced a pandemic that has now killed over 100,000 Americans, he took weeks to respond, and barely responded at that. But, when Twitter warned users that information in Trump’s tweets were untrue or misleading, providing factual information for users to compare, Trump’s meltdown propelled him to action in just one day. Donald Trump has already signed an executive order seeking to curb the abilities of social networks to define their own guidelines. Fortunately, it has next to no power. However, it’s a dangerous first step towards undermining First Amendment rights and dismantling social networks.
However, Donald Trump has a lot to lose if Twitter is legally responsible for the posts of its users. After all, Trump only became president thanks to his popularity on social networks, yet he’s broken all of their rules. If he makes social networks liable for the content their users post, he’d be the first person they ban.
In This Article:
The Executive Whimper
“The First Amendment protects Twitter from Trump. It does not protect Trump from Twitter.”
– Ashkhen Kazaryan, director of civil liberties at TechFreedom
Trump’s executive order starts off talking about free speech. However, what he’s arguing in favor of is the exact opposite. Private businesses have the right to control what happens on their platforms. They have the right to say what they want. Trump does not have the right to undermine that, no one in the government does because that’s what the First Amendment actually says. Yet this executive order seeks to find ways to undermine our freedom of speech.
“This isn’t China, where the government censors the social media as it sees fit and at will. But it seems Trump wants to move the United States in that direction.”
– Clay Calvert, a law professor at the University of Florida
Political Theater, Not Action
Fortunately, the executive order doesn’t have a whole lot of bite. It’s largely fluff, though it makes the claim that social networks become publishers when they moderate content. They argue that, because moderation and editorializing (like posting fact checks) is a form of creation, it’s speech. Since it’s speech, they can treat all speech on the platform as published by the social network. If that sounds like an illogical leap, that’s because it is. However, such a law could undermine Section 230, yet Trump doesn’t have the legal authority to do so. Instead, he’s trying to find if there’s a way to get around existing laws.
“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.”
– From Trump’s executive order
Sections of the executive order sound like a toddler upset that their sibling didn’t get caught doing something bad, and throwing a tantrum for getting caught. In Trump’s example above, for example, there is clear evidence for collusion and quid-pro-quo. That’s why Trump was impeached. Fact checking the executive order alone would be a lengthy task. But the purpose isn’t to write legislation, it’s to talk directly to his constituents, to make them feel like the victims. He’s rallying his supporters in language they understand.
The order also makes a claim that Section 230 was designed so that “if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a ‘publisher.'” This is actually the opposite of the function of Section 230. Section 230 gives these sites the right to moderate their own content. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), one of the authors of Section 230 stated that, “Donald Trump’s order is plainly illegal.”
The order seems to have no understanding of the law as it stands, and only asks the FTC to figure out if there’s a way to change the law to violate Twitter’s rights. This is a hefty temper tantrum, but that’s all it is. You can read the executive order in full below.
The Full Executive Order
Executive Order on Preventi… by TechCrunch on Scribd
Weak for Trump’s Sake
“They completely lack any kind of legal foundation whatsoever, and it’s very clear that what he is really doing is trying to bully Twitter into continuing to allow him to broadcast whatever he wants to, however false it is, with complete impunity.”
– Hannah Bloch-Wehba, a law professor at Drexel University
The thing is, if Donald Trump has his way, and social networks can be held liable for the content on their networks, then he’d be the first to go. The man has threatened people, spread conspiracy theories and libel, and even encouraged violence against his political opponents. That’s not even mentioning the fact that he has threatened nuclear war over Twitter. If Twitter’s liable for the actions of their users, Donald Trump would be their greatest liability. He would Facebook and Twitter up to libel and discrimination lawsuits. The fact is, if Section 230 falls, Trump would be banned from every network.
Trump’s temper tantrum would destroy his favorite toy: Twitter. What would he do during his “executive time” then?
What Would “More Bite” Look Like?
Photo: REUTERS/Jim Young – RTS97MX
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is considered the “backbone of the internet.” It protects companies from the actions of their users. It’s how social networks and virtually any site with user generated content can even exist. Without it, social networks would have to carefully police everything you post or share. They’d never be able to keep up. Therefore, user generated content on the internet would cease to exist.
There are exceptions to Section 230. Some sex trafficking laws have, for better or worse, forced networks to ban and moderate content. In Germany Anti-Nazi propaganda laws force Twitter to monitor the network for hate speech. In every country, Twitter ensures ISIS isn’t using the network to plan attacks. However, these are due to the safety of users outside of the social network. No one is put in danger when a lying politician’s tweets get a fact check label. But when white supremacists plan an attack on a platform, people die.
An Attack on the U.S. Economy
Dismantling Section 230 would destroy companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, Reddit, Etsy, Amazon, Redbubble, TeeSpring, Deviantart, Tumblr, Imgur, Giphy, Discord, and many more. WordPress and Squarespace? Gone. Every hosting provider? Potentially gone. Take a look at your phone. How many of the apps can upload content on the internet for others to see? Every one of those would die.
“Repealing or limiting section 230 will have the opposite effect. It will restrict more speech online, not less.”
– From Facebook’s response to Trump’s executive order
The effects on the U.S. economy would be devastating. Many of these companies employ tens of thousands. They would all be out of work in an instant. Frankly, without Section 230, America’s economy would crumble, and Americans would have no way to express their displeasure about it online. The blow to free speech would be crippling and the economy would likely never recover completely. Many of those networks would move out of the U.S.’s jurisdiction, and the tech sector as a whole would leave the United States behind.
What’s Next?
Photo: Chriss Keane/Reuters. Twitter Spittle: me
Trump played his card. If he does another executive order right away after the first one, he’ll look even weaker, if that’s possible. The man lied, got called out on it, and threw a temper tantrum that ended with an executive order. It’s unprecedented. That makes sense, because he is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous president we’ve ever had.
This order should alarm you. It further proves that the president of the United States doesn’t care about the constitution or the rights of others. He doesn’t care about the economy or free speech. He just cares about his own campaign and his own profits. While we’re fortunate that this executive order won’t incur a legal battle for our rights and livelihoods, it’s clear that this fight is only just getting started.
Sources:
- Karissa Bell, Engadget
- Russell Brandom, The Verge
- Tristan Greene, The Next Web
- Taylor Hatmaker, TechCrunch
- Zeke Miller, Associated Press via Time
- Sonam Sheth and Ashley Gold, Business Insider
- Sonam Sheth and Eliza Relman, Business Insider