Would the repeal of Article 230 promote free speech as Trump says?

On December 23, President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act, in part because lawmakers did not include a measure to repeal section 230 of the 1996 Communicability of Communications Act. The House on Monday voted to veto the Senate.

The president threatened to veto the $ 740 billion defense bill earlier this month if Article 230 is not repealed. According to CNN, the defense bill will include funds to increase U.S. soldiers’ wages, modernize equipment and allow for stricter investigations before troops withdraw from Afghanistan and Germany.

On Tuesday night, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a parallel pandemic bill to the one passed by Congress last week, which would offer increased direct payments of $ 2,000 (versus $ 600) to individuals, as Trump and Democrats called for, as well. as a repeal. of section 230 and legislation regarding election fraud studies.

Twitter is going wild with their flags and trying hard to suppress even the truth. Just show how dangerous they are, deliberately the freedom of speech. Very dangerous for our country. Does Congress know that this is how communism begins? Cancel culture at its worst. Finish Section 230!

– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 24 December 2020

The statement

Article 230 is criticized as a way for social media businesses to censor speech on their platforms. Trump, who has flagged or removed several Twitter posts, has called for the legislation to be repealed on several occasions. He said the repeal of Article 230 would promote freedom of speech.

In May, an executive order was issued to prevent online censorship, which reads: ‘Article 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans that control important channels for our national discourse, under cover of promoting open forums for debate, and then providing cover for the broken for immunity when they use their power to censor the content and conceal the views they do not hold. ‘

The executive order specifically called Twitter for a ‘selective decision'[ing] to place a warning label on certain tweets in a way that clearly reflects political prejudice. ‘

“As reported, Twitter never seems to have put such a label on a tweet from another politician. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff [D-Calif.] continued to deceive his followers by cheating the long-defunct Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not mark the tweets. It is not surprising that the official who controlled the so-called ‘Site Integrity’ displayed his political prejudice in his own tweets. ‘

Twitter is out of control, made possible by the government gift of Article 230!

– Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 6 November 2020

According to Reuters, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which is funded by Facebook, Google and Twitter, filed a lawsuit against the executive order in June. The complaint alleges that the order violates the first amendment. Reuters reported earlier this month that the case was dismissed because the order was aimed at federal agencies, not social media, to limit the scope of Article 230.

In September, Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Senate Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss) and Legal Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) attempted to reform instead of Article 230 recall the type of content that companies can moderate on social media while maintaining the freedom of liability.

“We do think it is important that Article 230 be revisited and not repealed,” Blackburn said.

Today I will vote NO on the dominance of @realDonaldTrump‘s veto of the NDAA.

This is why:

The law cannot end Article 230 and is a gift to our enemies like Communist China!

– Lance Gooden (@Lancegooden) 28 December 2020

Recently, Trump received support to repeal Article 230 from other elected officials, including Representatives Lance Gooden (R-Texas) and Graham, who both promised not to ignore the defense bill’s veto.

Congress must vote to repeal Article 230 as requested by President @realDonaldTrump.

I will not vote to dominate presidential veto unless an effort is made to end Article 230.

– Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) 23 December 2020

According to Roll Call, across the aisle, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also opposed Article 230, calling it “a real gift to Big Tech.” However, Pelosi voted to reverse the veto of the defense bill.

The facts

Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act was written by then-representatives Chris Cox (R-California) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) To allow Internet companies to regulate themselves, giving the government control over what is currently the massive internet industry is, limited. service providers.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, companies like Twitter and Facebook can not be treated as publishers, which means that they host and are not responsible for what people post on their platforms, but that they can act as moderators in good faith.

Some politicians believe that the ability for platforms to be their own moderators allows social media companies to censor speech, while others claim that social media companies have not done enough to respond to misinformation and other issues on their platforms.

In an interview with The Atlantic in November, former President Barack Obama addressed the dangers of misinformation on social media.

“I do not hold the technology companies completely responsible,” Obama said, “because it is ahead of social media. It was already there. But social media has fueled it with turbo … if we do not have the ability to to distinguish what is true from what is true is not false, then the market of ideas does not work by definition. And by definition our democracy does not work. “

The bottom line is that social media companies can not be sued for content posted on their platforms, but can remove content that does not comply with their rules, guidelines and policies. For example, Twitter has the right to mark or take down messages that encourage violence, promote terrorism, include sexual exploitation of children or include a number of other security issues.

On October 28, Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, testified before the Senate Trade Committee on Section 230. He said: “Without Section 230, platforms could potentially be held liable for everything people say. Platforms are likely to censor more content to be legal. to avoid risks and would be less likely to invest in technologies that enable people to express themselves in new ways. ‘

Zuckerberg further said Congress should update the law to ensure it “works as intended.”

Jeff Kosseff, an assistant professor of cybersecurity at the U.S. Naval Academy, reiterated Zuckerberg’s testimony, saying: ‘I think if you eliminate Article 230, you’ll see all the platforms, from the largest technology companies to small communities . newsletters, be much more limited in terms of user content that allows them to post on their sites, because they will suddenly be significantly liable for the comments. “

Many people who see flags as a form of stifling freedom of speech have turned to Parler, which is a platform that sees itself as an unbiased social networking service. So far, Trump has not expressed any displeasure with the website.

Parler states in his community guidelines that, “We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual. In no case will Parler decide on that basis what content will be removed or filtered or whose account will be removed. of the opinion expressed within the content concerned. “

The first amendment to the Constitution reads: ‘Congress may not make any law which respects a religious institution or prohibits its free exercise; or the freedom of speech or press; or the right of the people to assemble, and to request the government for the correction of grievances. ‘

The first amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech, but does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of speech.

In the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States, Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the first amendment does not protect speech that creates a ‘clear and present danger of a significant evil’. In other words, if people promote violence or harm to others, the use of speech is exempt from constitutional protection.

The government

Untrue.

The repeal of Article 230 will no longer promote freedom of speech, as companies on social media and other internet platforms are likely to restrict the content on their sites to avoid liability and the associated overwhelming legal costs.

Furthermore, the clear and current danger rule releases speech that promotes violence from constitutional protection. Social media companies do not restrict the rights for the first edit by tagging or deleting posts that promote other users’ harm or violence.