Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Trump Signs Executive Order on Social Media Bias

    Trump Signs Executive Order on Social Media Bias

    “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers”
    Listen to this article

    Trump just signed an Executive Order regarding social media bias.

    The Wall Street Journal reported:

    Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office Thursday as he prepared to sign the order, Mr. Trump accused Twitter of acting as an editor “with a viewpoint” and described the platform’s fact-check of his tweets as “political activism.” He said he would delete his Twitter account “in a heartbeat” if he felt the news media were fair to him.

    “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers,” the president said. He acknowledged the order would likely be challenged in court, but added: “What isn’t?”

    Attorney General William Barr, speaking alongside the president, said the Justice Department would draft legislation for Congress on curtailing social-media companies’ liability protections. He said the executive order would return the federal law to its intended scope.

    I’ve not seen the text of the Order yet. That will be posted once available. [UPDATE — SEE BOTTOM OF POST FOR TEXT]

    Here’s a short clip released by the White House:

    Here’s the full signing event, with follow up questioning on other issues as well including mail ballots:


    The Trump Campaign released this statement:

    “Social media has been allowed to operate unchecked for years while enjoying the protection of federal law. These Silicon Valley giants have set themselves up as the arbiters of truth, censoring or labeling posts they disagree with, but they have shown that they cannot be trusted to be honest and fair. We have known for a long time that social media companies have it in for conservatives in general and President Trump specifically. There are various reasons we pulled our massive advertising spending from Twitter months ago, and their obvious political bias is one of them. In the most recent egregious act, Twitter targeted a Trump tweet, but still leaves alone posts from Joe Biden which are obvious lies, and outrageous propaganda claims from accounts linked to the Communist Chinese government. Since social media companies have not appropriately self-regulated to stop the bias on their own, President Trump has stepped in to make sure Silicon Valley is held accountable for trying to manipulate the American people. Good for him and good for America.”



    Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship


    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1.  Policy.  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

    In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

    The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

    Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

    As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes.  It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

    Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse.  Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

    Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias.  As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.  As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets.  Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

    At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China.  One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance.  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military.  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights.  They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

    As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice.  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

    Sec2.  Protections Against Online Censorship.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

    Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation.  As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content.  In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material.  The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.”  47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3).  The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

    In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.  When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct.  It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

    (b)  To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

    (i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

    (ii)  the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

    (A)  deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

    (B)  taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

    (iii)  any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

    Sec3.  Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech.  (a)  The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.  Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

    (b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

    (c)  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

    Sec4.  Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices.  (a)  It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.  The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.”  Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017).  Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders.  These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate.  CfPruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980).

    (b)  In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

    (c)  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code.  Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

    (d)  For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order.  The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

    Sec5.  State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws.  (a)  The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

    (b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

    (i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

    (ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

    (iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

    (iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

    (v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

    Sec6.  Legislation.  The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

    Sec7.  Definition.  For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

    Sec8.  General Provisions. (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

    (i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

    (ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

    (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

    (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


    For background, see Eugene Volokh, 47 U.S.C. § 230 and the Publisher/Distributor/Platform Distinction

    The EO starts a process, a process that is not likely to change the law in the short term. No new legislation that Trump would want would get through the Democrat-controlled House. And formal regulatory change would take time.

    So view this as framing the national debate in an election year. Twitter in particular, but also Facebook, are putting their thumbs on the scale against Trump. He wants you to know that. Now you do.

    Also, while media and Democrats are screaming that Trump wants to censor the internet, don’t expect Joe Biden to be able to make much of it, Joe Biden wants to revoke Section 230:

    In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, former Vice President Joe Biden called for tech’s biggest liability shield, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, to be “revoked, immediately.”

    “The idea that it’s a tech company is that Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” Biden said. “It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false.”

    This wasn’t the first time Biden criticized the immensely important internet law. In previous interviews with outlets like CNN, Biden has said that “we should be considering taking away [Facebook’s] exemption,” but has never ventured as far as saying that it should be completely “revoked.” The Verge contacted Biden’s campaign to ask if he stands by the statements provided to The New York Times; the campaign did not immediately respond.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Barry Soetoro | May 29, 2020 at 2:20 am

    “This Executive Order is egregiously excessive with clearly malevolent intent to suppress free speech. It is a blatant attempt to use the full power of the United States government to force private companies to lie for the President.”
    -Danang Dick Blumenthal

    Social justice warriors always lie, and they always project. And, lemmings choose to believe them.

    gospace | May 29, 2020 at 2:20 am

    Lots of talking about the statute- but nothing with what it actually says. So, lets dissect it bit by bit.
    47 U.S. Code § 230 (a)(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.

    A true diversity of political discourse. The law apparently approves. Facebook and Twitter are censoring political viewpoints. Hmmm….

    Let’s jump to 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
    (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
    No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
    Pretty straight forward.

    Now to (2)Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
    (A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

    Ah, here we run into “What does the law mean?” Pretty much there’s going to be little if any argument on obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, and excessively violent. Where we run into the interpretation is “Good faith” and “otherwise objectionable”. Are conservative viewpoints, the ones being censored “otherwise objectionable”? Is Facebook acting “in good faith” in removing or banning conservative political content? That’s pretty much no and no. And if the answer is no and no, their actions aren’t protected under 47 U.S. Code § 230. Especially if we go back to the beginning statement The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,. They are NOT offering a forum for a true diversity of political thought if they’re censoring or even offering their own opinion on one side of an issue. If they’re offering their own opinion- like Facebook fact checks, which are not fact checks but opinion differences. Their own opinion- making them liable for what they say. Because it’s it’s not content provided by others, it’s content they make and provide.

    You also have to look at definitions. 47 U.S. Code § 230 provides protection to interactive computer services. The definition is in the code, and if Facebook simply allows postings from “information content providers” or Facebook users, then Facebook is a protected interactive computer service.

    Information content providers are not afforded that protection against liability. That would be, for example, and MSM website, or, on Facebook, a Facebook user. I am not protected against libel on Facebook. But Facebook is protected if I label someone.

    Unless Facebook crossed the line from interactive computer service to information content providers. And/or doesn’t act in “good faith” to remove “otherwise objectionable” content.

    Facebook gives me a tool to avoid “otherwise objectionable” if I want. I can block idiots and liberals. Oops, redundancy alert! Like most conservatives, I choose not to, hoping that some day they’ll take the red pill. I’ve been blocked or defriended by all but one liberal friend. Liberals do not like forums for a true diversity of political discourse. They like echo chambers.

    A case can easily be made that Facebook has crossed from interactive computer service to information content providers. And under 47 U.S. Code § 230 they lose protection against libel and other legal claims if they have. In pre-internet terms, they can be a publisher or a bulletin board. In internet, interactive computer service or information content providers. No hybrids, can’t be both. It’s one or the other. One’s protected against libel, one isn’t.

    Either Facebook, etc. are common carriers and thus open to everyone or private web sites–if the latter they should have no legal immunity. That’s the choice–and Zuckerman, etc. should have to choose.

    BierceAmbrose | May 29, 2020 at 3:21 pm

    Volokh’s first take:

    Clearly lays out in lawyerly terms the categories, distinctions, n associated legal requirements for publishers, carriers, super-seekret-special internet whatevers that are so muddied n misrepresented in many comments above.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend