Federal Communications Commission President Ajit Pai said he is abandoning his plan to help President Trump impose a crackdown on social media platforms and offered moderate criticism of Trump’s incitement to a crowd that invaded the U.S. Capitol in a failed attempt to annul electoral results.
In October, Pai supported Trump’s proposal to limit Section 230 legal protections to social media sites that block or modify content posted by users. At the time, Pai said he would open a process to create FCC rules to declare that companies like Twitter and Facebook do not have “special immunity” for their content moderation decisions. But Pai has not moved forward with the proposal since Trump’s defeat in the elections and has now stated in an interview that he will not finalize the plan.
“The situation is that I do not intend to proceed with the notice of proposal for the elaboration of rules [to reinterpret Section 230] at the FCC, “said Pai in an interview published yesterday by the Protocol.” The reason is, in part, because, given the election results, there is simply not enough time to complete the administrative steps necessary to resolve the regulation. Given this reality, I do not believe it is appropriate to move on. “Father announced shortly after Trump’s electoral defeat that he would leave the FCC on January 20, the day of inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a US law that states that providers and users of interactive computer services should not be held responsible for “any voluntary action taken in good faith to restrict access or availability of material that the provider or user considers it to be obscene, lustful, lustful, filthy, excessively violent, hostile or otherwise questionable, whether that material is constitutionally protected or not. “Before abandoning his plan, Pai said social media companies” do not have a right to First Amendment to a special immunity denied to other media, such as newspapers and broadcasters, “but both conservative and liberal opponents of its plan said the FCC has no constitutional authority to reinterpret the statute.
Father: Seeking a reversal of the elections was a “terrible mistake”
On Wednesday of this week, while Congress was meeting to certify Biden’s electoral victory, the United States Capitol was invaded by a crowd incited by Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen from him. Trump used social media to spread his unsubstantiated claims, and his posting privileges were suspended by Facebook and Instagram, while Twitter removed several of these arson tweets. Trump wanted the FCC to crack down on social media companies to prevent Facebook and Twitter from moderating their posts.
Protocol reporter Emily Birnbaum asked Pai if he thinks Trump “has any responsibility” for “violence and chaos [that] to burst[ed] on Capitol Hill, perpetuated by Trump supporters on his behalf. “Father did not mention Trump by name in his response, but said it was a” mistake “to suggest that the election results could be changed:
The scenes we saw yesterday were outrageous and extremely disappointing for those of us who cherish American democracy, one of the hallmarks is the peaceful transition of power. To answer your question, I think it was a terrible mistake to suggest that the election results, and particularly the process that culminated yesterday in the Senate and the House, could be altered in any way. This was a terrible mistake and I don’t think it should have been tolerated at all.
Birnbaum lobbied Pai for a more direct condemnation of Trump, asking, “Do you think the president’s indulgence in these theories was partly responsible for what happened?” Pai’s answer to this question focused on troublemakers, not to mention Trump:
I have not studied all the statements that have been made and the actions that have been taken. I was watching as closely as I could on television. But all I will say is that, given the circumstances we saw – armed guards defending the Senate House, people wielding Confederate flags at the seat of the United States government – it was completely unacceptable, completely outrageous. We must be governed by the rule of law, not the rule of the crowd. Law and order must be restored and democracy must be respected. These are the fundamental expectations of every American citizen. It is what distinguishes democracy from other governments around the world. I believe this deeply, regardless of political affiliation or circumstance.
Father is still concerned about social media moderation
Pai said he is still concerned about social media moderation decisions and is open to new regulations. “What I’m going to say is what I said [in] November 2017, long before this was a dominant trend in mainstream discourse: Social media increasingly defines the public square when it comes to political discourse, “said Pai to the Protocol.” We need more transparency and understanding of how some of these decisions are made, how certain content is allowed or not allowed on these platforms. “Elected officials should consider this lack of transparency” when thinking about whether and how to regulate social media companies, “said Pai.
Despite this, Pai did not criticize Facebook and Twitter for restricting Trump this week. When asked if he “agrees[s] with the decision of Facebook and Twitter to remove the president from social media “, Pai replied:” Given the circumstances we saw yesterday, I will not question these decisions. “
Although Democrats at the FCC objected to pressure from Section 230 of Pai, saying the commission should not become Trump’s “speech police”, Biden called for the repeal of Section 230 a year ago.
Father expects Congress to act. “There is now a bipartisan consensus among elected officials that the law should be changed,” he said. “Obviously, the president believes it should be repealed, President-elect Biden has campaigned repeatedly for its repeal, but within Congress there seems to be a consensus that it should be revised or reformed in some way as well.” Pai said it was “a very complicated issue” and “I personally would think about it more carefully in terms of the immunity clause”, but said the decision will be up to Congress and the Biden government.