3 ms·

This is unconstitutional and will be struck down. The president can’t just decide to change the meaning of a law to make it do something it wasn’t written to do

This is unconstitutional and will be struck down. The president can’t just decide to change the meaning of a law to make it do something it wasn’t written to do, and assigning three unelected bureaucrats at the FCC to regulate free speech on the Internet sets an extremely dangerous precedent whether you agree with the politics in this case or not. There are _legal_ approaches to address the real issue of online censorship: 1. Actually amend the Communications Decency Act Section 230 2. Exercise antitrust authority to break up platforms that exert monopoly influence 3. Encourage free market alternatives to established platforms I believe that online censorship of political viewpoints is a real and serious issue, but it needs to be addressed in a lawful manner. Between this and the EARN IT Act, we are entering extremely dangerous territory for free speech online and I fear the short sighted politicians and DOJ are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to pushing these policies.

Kapura 6y ago
Are you aware of who appoints and approves federal judges that will hear this case?
- henriquez 6y ago
  Yes, and the judiciary is not a rubber-stamp for executive authority, contrary to popular belief.
Simulacra 6y ago
1. The political optics of this will never let it happen. Not withstanding those on the right and left who agree, but rather tech companies, their mouthpieces, and oh boy the lobbyists. Be thankful for your government, it's the best money can buy. 2. WAY easier said than done. The FTC started investigating Microsoft in 1992, but it was not until 2001 that the courts settled the matter and Microsoft settled. Nine YEARS. So no, this is absolutely not a top option for the administration because they've got only four years left. 3. Forgive me, I don't know where you are located, but this is kind of the mantra for America. Companies from Google to GAB to that decentralized network I can't remember the name of, have tried to compete. They can't - possibly because the companies are too powerful. Oh, and it's not unconstitutional, unless you have a specific clause in the Constitution that I am not seeing? At best it's not within the boundaries of Executive Orders; banning guns is definitely not within the boundaries but the Left wants to do it anyway.
- henriquez 6y ago
  It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law. Only the legislature can. Unfortunately CDA is written in a way that broadly allows tech companies to censor any content that doesn’t fit their commercial or political narratives. It’s a poison pill to Internet discourse at the endpoint we’ve reached where three or four companies control that vast majority of online speech. In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,” an admission of defeat for the free market ideals that we pretend this country champions. Only a change to the law or reimagining of the Internet can fix this. I don’t share your pessimism that this is impossible. I think decentralized/P2P platforms do have a place and a chance to unseat tech incumbents. Remember what happened to Yahoo and AOL? I just don’t think that our current set of tech companies are immune from the same sort of abandonment and irrelevance. A moment is coming where everything changes.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    > It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law. True, but it's within the executive branch's purview to... interpret the law a bit, as they execute it. Of course, then it's on the judicial branch to determine whether or not that was okay. > In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,” This is actually one of the most interesting parts of this, though it definitely will be tested by the judicial branch here. Trump has decided Twitter constitutes the modern equivalent of the "public square", where people are entitled to speak freely. ...Apart from the fact that it's corporately owned, I'd totally agree that that's true: Modern free speech has moved entirely to media (TV, Internet, Radio, etc.) which are all owned by corporations. Now, where that gets interesting is that the government is required to allow you to speak freely... corporations aren't, according to current interpretations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has vastly expanded the application of the Bill of Rights before though. It's presumably possible that a future court could decide that social media companies must allow people their town square.

Kapura 6y ago

Are you aware of who appoints and approves federal judges that will hear this case?

henriquez 6y ago
Yes, and the judiciary is not a rubber-stamp for executive authority, contrary to popular belief.

Simulacra 6y ago

1. The political optics of this will never let it happen. Not withstanding those on the right and left who agree, but rather tech companies, their mouthpieces, and oh boy the lobbyists. Be thankful for your government, it's the best money can buy. 2. WAY easier said than done. The FTC started investigating Microsoft in 1992, but it was not until 2001 that the courts settled the matter and Microsoft settled. Nine YEARS. So no, this is absolutely not a top option for the administration because they've got only four years left. 3. Forgive me, I don't know where you are located, but this is kind of the mantra for America. Companies from Google to GAB to that decentralized network I can't remember the name of, have tried to compete. They can't - possibly because the companies are too powerful. Oh, and it's not unconstitutional, unless you have a specific clause in the Constitution that I am not seeing? At best it's not within the boundaries of Executive Orders; banning guns is definitely not within the boundaries but the Left wants to do it anyway.

henriquez 6y ago
It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law. Only the legislature can. Unfortunately CDA is written in a way that broadly allows tech companies to censor any content that doesn’t fit their commercial or political narratives. It’s a poison pill to Internet discourse at the endpoint we’ve reached where three or four companies control that vast majority of online speech. In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,” an admission of defeat for the free market ideals that we pretend this country champions. Only a change to the law or reimagining of the Internet can fix this. I don’t share your pessimism that this is impossible. I think decentralized/P2P platforms do have a place and a chance to unseat tech incumbents. Remember what happened to Yahoo and AOL? I just don’t think that our current set of tech companies are immune from the same sort of abandonment and irrelevance. A moment is coming where everything changes.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  > It’s unconstitutional because the president can’t decide to change a law. True, but it's within the executive branch's purview to... interpret the law a bit, as they execute it. Of course, then it's on the judicial branch to determine whether or not that was okay. > In a sense, the president is declaring Twitter and Facebook to be “public utilities,” This is actually one of the most interesting parts of this, though it definitely will be tested by the judicial branch here. Trump has decided Twitter constitutes the modern equivalent of the "public square", where people are entitled to speak freely. ...Apart from the fact that it's corporately owned, I'd totally agree that that's true: Modern free speech has moved entirely to media (TV, Internet, Radio, etc.) which are all owned by corporations. Now, where that gets interesting is that the government is required to allow you to speak freely... corporations aren't, according to current interpretations of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has vastly expanded the application of the Bill of Rights before though. It's presumably possible that a future court could decide that social media companies must allow people their town square.