Live data from Hacker News

Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

kateklonick.com

211–220 of 220 posts

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#211

I seem to recall we had a court ruling (non-SC) earlier that said officials that use social media can't block other users on there... something about it being a public forum or such. But if we treat it that way, then does that have implications on what people can expect in terms of limits on speech?

No, you've misinterpreted the ruling. It is not because twitter is a "public forum" that a public official cannot block a follower, it is because the public official is a public official that they cannot block a follower.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#212

I seem to recall we had a court ruling (non-SC) earlier that said officials that use social media can't block other users on there... something about it being a public forum or such. But if we treat it that way, then does that have implications on what people can expect in terms of limits on speech?

No, you've misinterpreted the ruling. It is not because twitter is a "public forum" that a public official cannot block a follower, it is because the public official is a public official that they cannot block a follower.

I was thinking more along the lines of, would being a public official in a public forum imply that the forum administrators can't interject and add their own editorials to his speech either? At least, I can't think of situations where this happens in real life, so it's not clear to me what the implications are.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#213
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You care about that now?? Not just now, but yes. > I don’t remember the left up in arms about President Obama’s EOs I don't remember Obama issuing an EO directing agencies to issue “clarifying” regulations directly opposed to the text and clearly documented intent of the underlying statute (much less doing so for the express purpose of obstructing private actors exercise of free speech rights in direct retaliation…

DACA? I mean if you think "left" means outright communism, I guess President Obama wasn't quite that far over, but he was certainly not "center" or "center-right" either.

> DACA?

DACA wasn't an executive order by the President but a memo from the Director of Homeland Security, and didn't involve issuing “clarifying” regulation in an attempt to reinterpret the law, only a decision about how to apply the widely recognized executive prerogative of prosecutorial discretion.

> I mean if you think "left" means outright communism

You are badly mistaken if you think there is nothing to the left of pro-corporate neoliberalism besides “outright communism”. Every Democratic Presidential nominee since Clinton has been a center-right corporate neoliberal that, policy wise, would have fit reasonably well into the moderate wing of the Republican Party (which, to be fair, overlapped in the center-right with the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, which wasn't dominant prior to that point) up until the rightward shift the Republican Party took to differentiate itself after Clinton was elected on a basically Republican economic platform.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#214
post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DACA? I mean if you think "left" means outright communism, I guess President Obama wasn't quite that far over, but he was certainly not "center" or "center-right" either.

> DACA? DACA wasn't an executive order by the President but a memo from the Director of Homeland Security, and didn't involve issuing “clarifying” regulation in an attempt to reinterpret the law, only a decision about how to apply the widely recognized executive prerogative of prosecutorial discretion. > I mean if you think "left" means outright communism You are badly mistaken if you think there is nothing to the le…

Ok, it was an "executive branch memorandum", which has exactly the same effect as an EO. It directed the executive branch to ignore federal law and refuse to prosecute everyone in a specific category of illegal immigrant. You can argue that it was just an exercise of "prosecutorial discretion", but the courts don't agree with you as they've refused to allow the current administration to rescind it. In fact, one might argue the courts have actually taken that "memorandum" and turned it into irrevocable law.

The Republican Party has shifted hard left in the last twenty years, the Democrat party most certainly has not shifted right. Many Republicans in the Senate (and probably most of the house) could credibly just change to Democrats and nobody would even know the difference, and that's because the Republican Party has totally abandoned its roots. There are a few outspoken outliers, of course, but there has been essentially no actual conservative anything in the US since Reagan. JFK would never win the nomination as a Democrat today (for that matter neither would Bill Clinton), he'd have to run as a Republican as he would be considered far too conservative.

I remember Reagan, I'm guessing you don't beyond whatever caricatures your college professors sold you on, and you're looking at this solely through the lens of "oh my god the country isn't liberal enough", as most people on the left do. Reading your comment history tells me that's where this discussion is going and I won't bother to participate further.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#215
post #43
post #2

If I am to believe the poster, this is a draft of an Executive Order anonymously sent to her. As per: https://twitter.com/klonick/status/1265850206396076033?s=21 The implications are fairly dramatic if this is legitimate and were to be adopted / executed. Specifically it would declare that sites like Twitter and Facebook are subject to the Communications Decency Act by virtue of their editorializing the content vs ac…

"None of [the CDA's architects] said that there was this intent for platforms to be neutral. In fact, that was the opposite. They wanted platforms to feel free to make these judgments without risking liability..." https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte... Can an executive order overturn this? Isn't there already precedent about this topic?

One of the criteria a publisher can remove speech for and still be protected is "otherwise objectionable."

The executive order has no teeth as long as somebody finds the removed speech objectionable. And in this case, his speech wasnt removed, it was editorialized. It's a much more dangerous precedent to attempt to say "a private company is not allowed to speak in rebuttal to my speech," which is a downright nonsense claim. Of course a publisher can chime in with its own thoughts.

The other part about inconsistent with terms of service and inadequate explanation are also easily circumvented by having tos that say "we can remove whatever we want" and replying with "objectionable" and a clarification of why to every removable.

That all said, the idea of the Executive Order isn't completely nuts. If Twitter/Facebook have become the de facto public square, and they wish to remain it, can the government choose to extend first amendment protections to speakers on their platforms? In the same vein, should they be allowed to force non-anonymous use? Combined, Twitter/Facebook/Google can basically prevent ideas from spreading.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 3 month old account that only posts in threads about Trump and/or Social Media (Facebook, et al). Someone's low effort shill account. Come on buddy, the good shill accounts are years old and have longer, more obfuscating post histories.

Argue the argument, not the arguer.

[deleted]

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#217
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You care about that now?? I don’t remember the left up in arms about President Obama’s EOs.

> You care about that now?? Not just now, but yes. > I don’t remember the left up in arms about President Obama’s EOs I don't remember Obama issuing an EO directing agencies to issue “clarifying” regulations directly opposed to the text and clearly documented intent of the underlying statute (much less doing so for the express purpose of obstructing private actors exercise of free speech rights in direct retaliation…

Without even digging up a list, just the most offensive couple actions I can remember:

1. 2015 "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule, which grabbed federal control over private property which happened to sometimes drain into a US coastal water or into a navigable US river

2. 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the Department of Education, that denied due process to students who were accused

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#218
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> DACA? DACA wasn't an executive order by the President but a memo from the Director of Homeland Security, and didn't involve issuing “clarifying” regulation in an attempt to reinterpret the law, only a decision about how to apply the widely recognized executive prerogative of prosecutorial discretion. > I mean if you think "left" means outright communism You are badly mistaken if you think there is nothing to the le…

Ok, it was an "executive branch memorandum", which has exactly the same effect as an EO. It directed the executive branch to ignore federal law and refuse to prosecute everyone in a specific category of illegal immigrant. You can argue that it was just an exercise of "prosecutorial discretion", but the courts don't agree with you as they've refused to allow the current administration to rescind it. In fact, one might…

JFK wouldn't even recognize the Democratic party.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Therefore, this EO places such platforms outside scope of Sec. 230 protection So Trump is trying to tell the courts, via executive order, how to interpret the law? I'm no expert, but I don't think that's how the different branches of government work.

He's not "telling" the courts anything, he's telling the FTC, FCC, etc to interpret 230 as intended, where a social media site can now be interpreted as a publisher and not as a neutral platform if they engage in active editorial decision making (i.e. feed manipulation, shadow banning, editorial injections, etc). If Twitter wants to challenge the Federal Government on this, they'll have to do battle in court. In the…

I'm surprised the FEC isn't involved as well. It would seem like a donation in kind to block candidates and elected officials from twitter.

Re: Draft of Executive Order on Online Censorship [pdf]

#220
post #80

It would seem to me that this order tramples on the First Amendment. No matter how much the executive wants to trample on twitter, they are still a private company and can publish or not publish what they wish.

Right now they are considered a platform, not a publisher. Platforms can't be sued for libel. They are acting as a publisher. Remember the Covington Boys, CNN (A publisher) etc. got the pants sued off of them for Libel. That is one rich kid. Anyway if it is determined they are a publisher they can be sued. So if you were to post that I'm an Orange NAZI on twitter. I could essentially sue you and twitter, if I prove that I am not an Orange Nazi I could win millions. Both you and twitter would pay. No one knows if you have enough money to pay out 8 figures but everyone and his lawyer knows twitter does.
Post reply on HN