In the column distributed by the 久久热 Writers Syndicate, Professor of Law Enrique Armijo argues that President Trump's recent Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship would do more to limit free speech than to protect it.
The following column appeared recently in the and the via the 久久热 Writers Syndicate. Views are the author鈥檚 own and not necessarily those of 久久热.聽
Don’t feed President Troll
By Enrique Armijo
In the midst of a pandemic that has killed more than 100,000 Americans, and as dozens of cities burn after a police officer killed a defenseless African American man by kneeling on his neck, an argument about Twitter seems trivial.
But thanks to President Trump, here we are.
First, the legal background. As you have probably heard last week, a federal law known as Section 230 enacted by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 gives websites and platforms legal immunity for the user speech that they host.
It鈥檚 the reason there is a comment section below newspaper articles or on Facebook when story links are posted there, and the reason Twitter doesn鈥檛 have to take down Trump鈥檚 tweets casting suspicion on Joe Scarborough for murdering his intern, and the reason you can use Google to find conspiracy videos accusing Bill Gates of developing COVID-19 vaccines to implant microchips into every American.
Without Section 230, none of this speech would be possible, at least online. Possible legal liability of the website for hosting the user鈥檚 speech would result in websites, including Facebook and Twitter, taking down any user content that would expose the website to being sued.
For better or for worse, Section 230 has given us the Internet we have today.
Based on his Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, however, President Trump seems to think Section 230 is a threat to free speech, not an enabler. Claiming bias against conservatives and ripping mad over Twitter鈥檚 fact-check labeling of a tweet of his falsely suggesting that mail-in-voting leads to widespread voter fraud (it doesn鈥檛 鈥 I just asked for my mail-in ballot from my county鈥檚 Board of Elections, and I strongly suggest you do the same), Trump has charged other parts of the government to decide whether social media platforms are using their power to moderate content 鈥渢o stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.鈥
Here is the problem: The labels that President Trump claims would stifle free speech are speech, as protected by the First Amendment as the speech being labeled. So are all the social media content moderation policies that conservatives complain about incessantly鈥攁ll protected speech. Facebook could take down this newspaper鈥檚 post of this column because it disagreed with what I have to say, and neither the newspaper nor I could do a thing about it.
Of course, it wouldn鈥檛, because Facebook wants to be seen as neutral. But that neutrality isn鈥檛 compelled by the First Amendment, or even by Section 230.
So it is important to understand that for all the talk of bias by social media platforms, as a First Amendment matter Trump can鈥檛 do anything about Twitter or Facebook labeling his posts.
What Trump is trying to accomplish is in the service of less speech, not more鈥攂y bullying social media companies with false claims of bias and threats of regulation, he is trying to get them not to speak. And his administration apparently believes that threatening to change Section 230鈥攁nd by extension, the Internet that we enjoy today鈥攊s the way to do it.
And this is the irony that, like all other ironies, completely escapes him. Trump claims Twitter is his way to get around the 鈥渇ake news鈥 media and speak directly to the people. But in the absence of Section 230, many of the tweets he sends to his 80 million followers would never see the light of day.
The way to 鈥減revent online censorship鈥 isn鈥檛 to change Section 230. It鈥檚 to keep it out of the hands of politicians who want to stifle the speech of those with whom they disagree.