Would repealing section 230 promote freedom of expression, as Trump says?

Would repealing section 230 promote freedom of expression, as Trump says?

by

President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act on December 23 in part because lawmakers did not include a measure to repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The House voted on Monday to override the veto , which is now on its way to the Senate.

The president threatened to veto the broad $ 740 billion defense law earlier this month if Section 230 was not repealed. According to CNN, the defense project would include funds to increase pay for American soldiers, modernize equipment and provide provisions for more rigorous scrutiny before the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Germany.

On Tuesday night, majority leader Mitch McConnell introduced a pandemic relief bill parallel to that passed by Congress last week, which would offer an increase in direct payments of $ 2,000 (from $ 600) to individuals , as sought by Trump and Democrats, as well as a repeal of Section 230 and legislation on electoral fraud studies.

The claim

Section 230 was criticized as a way for social media companies to censor speech on their platforms. Trump, who has had several posts flagged or removed from Twitter, has called for the legislation to be repealed on several occasions. He said repealing Section 230 would promote freedom of expression.

In May, an executive order on preventing online censorship was issued, stating that “section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to become titans, controlling avenues vital to our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then provide general immunity to these giants when they use their power to censor content and silence views they don’t like. “

The executive order specifically called Twitter to “selectively decide[ing] put a warning label on certain tweets in a way that clearly reflects political prejudice. “

“As reported, Twitter never seems to have put that label on another politician’s tweet. Just last week, Congressman Adam Schiff [D-Calif.] he continued to deceive his followers by publicizing the long-refuted Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not signal those tweets. Unsurprisingly, his official in charge of the so-called ‘Site Integrity’ displayed his political prejudice in his own tweets. “

According to Reuters, the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which is funded by Facebook, Google and Twitter, filed a lawsuit in June against the executive order. The complaint argues that the order violates the First Amendment. Reuters reported earlier this month that the lawsuit was dismissed because the order was addressed to federal agencies, not social media companies, to limit the scope of Section 230.

In September, Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Senate Trade Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) And Judicial Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) tried to reform rather than repeal Section 230 to limit the type of content that social media companies can moderate, while maintaining disclaimers.

“We think it is important that there is a new visit and not a repeal of Section 230,” said Blackburn.

Trump recently received support to repeal Section 230 from other elected officials, including Representative Lance Gooden (R-Texas) and Graham, who pledged not to overturn the defense bill’s veto.

According to Roll Call, across the hall, Mayor Nancy Pelosi also opposed Section 230, calling it “a real gift for Big Tech.” Pelosi, however, voted to overturn the defense project’s veto.

The facts

Section 230 of the 1996 Decency in Communications Act was drafted by then-representatives Chris Cox (R-Calif.) And Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) To allow internet companies to self-regulate, limiting government control of what now it is the huge industry of internet service providers.

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

Some politicians feel that platforms’ ability to be their own moderators allows social media companies to censor speech, while others claim that social media companies have not done enough to answer 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 don’t consider technology companies entirely accountable,” said Obama, “because that predates social media. It already existed. But social media has boosted it … if we don’t have the ability to distinguish what’s true from what’s false. , so, by definition, the market for ideas doesn’t work. And, by definition, our democracy doesn’t work. “

The end result is that social media companies cannot be sued for content posted on their platforms, but they can remove content that does not comply with their rules, guidelines and policies. For example, Twitter has the right to flag or remove posts that encourage violence, promote terrorism, involve child sexual exploitation or include a litany of other security issues.

On October 28, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before the Senate Commerce Committee about Section 230. He said: “Without Section 230, platforms could potentially be held responsible for everything people say. Platforms they would probably censor more content to avoid legal risks and be less likely to invest in technologies that allow people to express themselves in new ways. “

Zuckerberg went on to say that Congress should update the law to ensure that it “works as intended”.

Jeff Kosseff, assistant professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, echoed Zuckerberg’s testimony, saying, “I think if you eliminate Section 230, you’ll see every platform, from the biggest tech companies to small website communities. of news, are much more restrictive in terms of user content that they allow to be posted on their sites, because suddenly they will face a great responsibility for those comments. “

Many people who consider signage to be a way of stifling freedom of expression have turned to Parler, a platform considered to be an impartial social networking service. So far, Trump has expressed no displeasure with the site.

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

The First Amendment to the Constitution states: “Congress will not make any law that respects the establishment of religion or prohibits its free exercise; or restricts freedom of expression or the press; or the right of the people to meet peacefully, and to do a petition to the Government for redress of complaints. “

The First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of expression, but does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of that expression.

In the case of the 1919 Supreme Court Schenck v. U.SJustice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the First Amendment does not protect the speech that creates a “clear and present danger of significant harm.” In other words, if people are promoting violence or harm against others, speaking is exempt from constitutional protections.

The decision

False.

Repealing Section 230 would not promote greater freedom of expression because social media companies and other Internet platforms are likely to restrict the content of their websites to avoid liability and the excessive legal fees associated with them.

In addition, the clear and present danger rule exempts speech that promotes violence from constitutional protections. Social media companies do not limit First Amendment rights by flagging or removing posts that promote harm or violence to other users.

Mark Zuckerberg
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg appears on a monitor while witnessing remotely during an audience to discuss the Section 230 reform of the Communications Decency Act with major technology companies on October 28, 2020 in Washington, DC
MICHAEL REYNOLDS / POOL / AFP / Getty
Jack Dorsey
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey gives his opening statement remotely during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing with major technology companies on October 28, 2020, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee discussed reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Greg Nash-Pool / Getty photo

Source