MESSAGE
| DATE | 2021-01-19 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Exceultive order on internet freedom
|
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/
Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship
Infrastructure & Technology
Issued on: May 28, 2020
All News
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.
Sec. 2. 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.
Sec. 3. 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.
Sec. 4. 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. Cf. PruneYard 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.
Sec. 5. 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.
Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for
Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy
objectives of this order.
Sec. 7. 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.
Sec. 8. 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.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
