President Trump addresses “selective censorship" & restrictive free speech of our Citizens
Aug 2, 2020 22:20:47 #
Commerce Department Petitions FCC to Outline Restrictions of Online Censorship by Petr Svab July 29, 2020
The Department of Commerce has asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to outline a framework that would constrain online platforms’ ability to censor users’ speech.
The petition was required under President Donald Trump’s May 28 executive order, which suggested that online content restrictions shouldn’t be considered in “good faith” if they are “deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or … taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”
The “good faith” provision comes from the Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The law generally absolves online platforms from liability for user content as well as for liability for regulating content “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.”
The executive order accused online companies of “selective censorship that is harming our national discourse” and “invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech.”
Section 230 wasn’t meant to shield companies from liability when they “engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree,” the order stated.
Brendan Carr, one of the three Republican commissioners, welcomed the petition, “The Section 230 petition provides an opportunity to bring much-needed clarity to the statutory text. And it allows us to move forward in a way that will empower speakers to engage in ‘a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,’ as Congress envisioned when it passed Section 230,”
Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks, the two Democrat commissioners, opposed the petition. There's 5 members that compose the commission.
Major digital companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google claim that their services are designed and operated to be politically neutral. Mounting evidence indicates, however, that the companies are infusing political preferences into their content policing.
The Department of Commerce has asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to outline a framework that would constrain online platforms’ ability to censor users’ speech.
The petition was required under President Donald Trump’s May 28 executive order, which suggested that online content restrictions shouldn’t be considered in “good faith” if they are “deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or … taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”
The “good faith” provision comes from the Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The law generally absolves online platforms from liability for user content as well as for liability for regulating content “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.”
The executive order accused online companies of “selective censorship that is harming our national discourse” and “invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech.”
Section 230 wasn’t meant to shield companies from liability when they “engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree,” the order stated.
Brendan Carr, one of the three Republican commissioners, welcomed the petition, “The Section 230 petition provides an opportunity to bring much-needed clarity to the statutory text. And it allows us to move forward in a way that will empower speakers to engage in ‘a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,’ as Congress envisioned when it passed Section 230,”
Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks, the two Democrat commissioners, opposed the petition. There's 5 members that compose the commission.
Major digital companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google claim that their services are designed and operated to be politically neutral. Mounting evidence indicates, however, that the companies are infusing political preferences into their content policing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.