SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the what-were-you-saying-about-Free-Speech? dept.
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.
From https://www.salon.com/2019/08/12/leaked-draft-of-trump-executive-order-deemed-unconstitutional_partner/ we get the following:
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."
"[...] 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."
This authoritarian legislation is being pushed by claiming it will do the opposite of censorship by giving the federal government even more broad power. Reminds me of the following quote, "I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."
See also:
- https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/leaked-draft-of-trump-executive-order-to-censor-the-internet-denounced-as-dangerous-unconstitutional-edict/
- https://thenextweb.com/socialmedia/2019/08/13/the-trump-administration-drafted-an-executive-order-to-censor-the-internet/
- http://dctribune.org/trumps-executive-order-to-censor-the-internet-leaked-could-allow-mass-government-censorship/
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20669477
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:09PM (7 children)
They are clearly publishers and regulated as such. They are legally liable for the content they publish. Please, learn the "basic bitch" facts of a political debate before wading into it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:49PM (1 child)
Fox News legally liable? For all the slander and false information they push every day?
Please, give me the phone number of this mythic attorney who can get me a payday for every lie Fox pushes! I'll be rich by tomorrow!
Not sure what brought you back, but hey nice to have such a clear example of conservative hypocrisy and stupidity to remind everyone what's what and who's who. You are a little lying fascist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 15 2019, @11:56PM
First, they would have to publish damaging lies about you. Then you would have to prove that you are the actual anonymous coward they lied about. Given both of those, there are plenty of lawyers who would take a case against them on contingency.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:19PM (4 children)
In order to be held liable for defamation, the stories they run have to be either:
1. About a private citizen (say, jmorris), and revealing of stuff other than their actions in public (e.g. who you slept with and exactly what you did with them). They're perfectly free to run whatever stories they like about your public actions, e.g. if you're in a bar saying things a lot of people find reprehensible, and the news outlet catches wind of that and runs a story, that's not defamation, that's the world recognizing that you're a terrible person and treating you accordingly.
2. Not only untrue, but known to be untrue by the publisher at the time it was published. For instance, if somebody wrote a story claiming that Donald Trump had personally murdered Jeffrey Epstein, and had absolutely no reason to believe it, that could be defamation. However, defamation of a public figure is extremely difficult to prove.
And of course anybody can publish whatever fiction they damn well please, including political jokes and such. For example, Douglas Adams wrote a short story about Ronald Reagan being an extremely dangerous alien life form.
That legal liability doesn't always amount to much though: If it did, Alex Jones would have been broke a long time ago.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:02PM (3 children)
IIRC, Fox news went to court and got a ruling that they were legally allowed to lie on a news cast. Snopes denies this, but http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public [philly2philly.com]
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 15 2019, @10:41PM (2 children)
My recollection was that lawyers for Fox News argued in court that government regulatory agencies should not be acting as judges of what is true and what is not true. It would have have a rather chilling effect on news reporting if the government were to be the final arbiter of "truth". While I can see their point, it does rather expose Fox News as being willing to play a bit fast and loose with what they report as "news". There are very few "reporters" on Fox News that I trust; most of the time I want corroboration before I take anything they report at face value.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday August 16 2019, @12:01AM (1 child)
That's a very commendable attitude. Now you only need to extend it to every other motive-driven news or media service.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 16 2019, @01:08AM
Alright, sure. But I hardly think you can fault the rest of us for noticing that there seems to be a rather large concentration of mendacity on Fox "News".