This post based its initial analysis on a draft Executive Order. It has been updated to reflect the final order, available here.
President Trumps Executive Order targeting social media companies is an assault on free expression online and a transparent attempt to retaliate against Twitter for its decision to curate (well, really just to fact-check) his posts and deter everyone else from taking similar steps. The good news is that, assuming the final order looks like the draft we reviewed on Wednesday, it wont survive judicial scrutiny. To see why, lets take a deeper look at its incorrect reading of Section 230 (47 U.S.C. 230) and how the order violates the First Amendment.
The main thrust of the order is to attack Section 230, the law that underlies the structure of our modern Internet and allows online services to host diverse forums for users speech. These platforms are currently the primary way that the majority of people express themselves online. To ensure that companies remain able to let other people express themselves online, Section 230 grants online intermediaries broad immunity from liability arising from publishing anothers speech. It contains two separate and independent protections.
Subsection (c)(1) shields from liability all traditional publication decisions related to content created by others, including editing, and decisions to publish or not publish. It protects online platforms from liability for hosting user-generated content that others claim is unlawful. For example, if Alice has a blog on WordPress, and Bob accuses Clyde of having said something terrible in the blogs comments, Section 230(c)(1) ensures that neither Alice nor WordPress are liable for Bobs statements about Clyde. The subsection also would also protect Alice and WordPress from claims from Bob for Clyde's comment even if Alice removed Bob's comment.
Subsection (c)(2) is an additional and independent protection from legal challenges brought by users when platforms decide to edit or to not publish material they deem to be obscene or otherwise objectionable. Unlike (c)(1), (c)(2) requires that the decision be in good faith. In the context of the above example, (c)(2) would protect Alice and WordPress when Alice decides to remove a term within the comment from Clyde that she considers to be offensive. Clyde cannot successfully sue Alice for that editorial action as long as Alice acted in good faith.
The legal protections in subsections (c)(1) and (c)(2) are completely independent of one another. There is no basis in the language of Section 230 to qualify (c)(1)s immunity on platforms obtaining immunity under (c)(2). And courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, have correctly interpreted the provisions as distinct and independent liability shields:
Subsection (c)(1), by itself, shields from liability all publication decisions, whether to edit, to remove, or to post, with respect to content generated entirely by third parties. Subsection (c)(2), for its part, provides an additional shield from liability, but only for any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider ... considers to be obscene ... or otherwise objectionable.
Even though neither the statute nor court opinions that interpret it mush these two Section 230 provisions together, the order asks the Federal Communications Commission to start a rulemaking and consider linking the two provision's liability shields. The order asks the FCC to consider whether a finding that a platform failed to act in "good faith" under subsection (c)(2) also disqualifies the platform from claiming immunity under section (c)(1).
In short, the order tasks government agencies with defining good faith and eventually deciding whether any platforms decision to edit, remove, or otherwise moderate user-generated content meets it, upon pain of losing access to all of Section 230's protections.
Should the order result in FCC rules interpreting 230 that way, a platform's single act of editing user content that the government doesnt like could result in losing both kinds of protections under 230. This essentially will work as a trigger to remove Section 230s protections entirely from a host of anything that someone disagrees with. But the impact of that trigger would be much broader than simply being liable for the moderation activities purportedly done in bad faith: Once a platform was deemed not in good faith, it could lose (c)(1) immunity for all user-generated content, not just the triggering content. This could result in platforms being subjected to a torrent of private litigation for thousands of completely unrelated publication decisions.
Taking a step back, the order purports to give the Executive Branch and federal agencies powerful leverage to force platforms to publish what the government wants them to publish, on pain of losing Section 230s protections. But even if section 230 permitted this, and it doesnt, the First Amendment bars such intrusions on editorial and curatorial freedom.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of publishers to make these types of editorial decisions. While the order faults social media platforms for not being purely passive conduits of user speech, the Court derived the First Amendment right from that very feature.
In its 1974 decision in Miami Herald Co v. Tornillo, the Court explained:
A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials -- whether fair or unfair -- constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment. It has yet to be demonstrated how governmental regulation of this crucial process can be exercised consistent with First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time.
Courts have consistently applied this rule to social media platforms, including the 9th Circuits recent decision in Prager U v. Google and a decision yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a case brought by Freedom Watch and Laura Loomer against Google. In another case, a court ruled that when online platforms "select and arrange others materials, and add the all-important ordering that causes some materials to be displayed first and others last, they are engaging in fully protected First Amendment expressionthe presentation of an edited compilation of speech generated by other persons."
And just last term in Manhattan Community Access v. Halleck, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that hosting the speech of others negated these editorial freedoms. The court wrote, In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
It went on to note that Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as a stagecoach, with seats for everyone, and that The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property."
The Supreme Court also affirmed that these principles applied "Regardless of whether something 'is a forum more in a metaphysical than in a spatial or geographic sense.
EFF filed amicus briefs in Prager U and Manhattan Community Access, urging that very result. These cases thus foreclose the Presidents ability to intrude on platforms editorial decisions and to transform them into public forums akin to parks and sidewalks.
But even if the First Amendment were not implicated, the President cannot use an order to rewrite an act of Congress. In passing 230, Congress did not grant the Executive the ability to make rules for how the law should be interpreted or implemented. The order cannot abrogate power to the President that Congress has not given.
We should see this order in light of what prompted it: the Presidents personal disagreement with Twitters decisions to curate his own tweets. Thus despite the orders lofty praise for free and open debate on the Internet, this order is in no way based on a broader concern for freedom of speech and the press.
Indeed, this Administration has shown little regard, and much contempt, for freedom of speech and the press. Were skeptical that the order will actually advance the ideals of freedom of speech or be justly implemented.
There are legitimate concerns about the current state of online expression, including how a handful of powerful platforms have centralized user speech to the detriment of competition in the market for online services and users privacy and free expression. But the order announced today doesn't actually address those legitimate concerns and it isn't the vehicle to fix those problems. Instead, it represents a heavy-handed attempt by the President to retaliate against an American company for not doing his bidding. It must be stopped.
- First Amendment on the street | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item - June 30th, 2020
- Taking a cellphone video of police? Theres a First Amendment for that - Seattle Times - June 30th, 2020
- First Amendment Bars California from Requiring a Proposition 65 Glyphosate Warning - JD Supra - June 30th, 2020
- Read the First Amendment | Letters To The Editor - The Central Virginian - June 30th, 2020
- First Amendment right to protest is in jeopardy in Jacksonville - The Florida Times-Union - June 30th, 2020
- Pence says First Amendment is why Trump campaign held Tulsa rally despite local health officials' warnings - Yahoo News - June 30th, 2020
- Supreme Court hands win to religious schools | TheHill - The Hill - June 30th, 2020
- Letter to the Editor: Remember and Defend the First Amendment - Dana Point Times - June 20th, 2020
- Another look at the First Amendment | Opinion - Franklin News Post - June 20th, 2020
- Death threats protected by First Amendment, attorney says - Alpena News - June 20th, 2020
- Really Pathetic: First Amendment Expert Torches DOJ Efforts to Stop John Bolton Book - Law & Crime - June 20th, 2020
- The First Amendment protects attorneys from compelled speech | TheHill - The Hill - June 17th, 2020
- Protesters are protected by the First Amendment and will not be cited any violations if they remain peaceful - WATN - Local 24 - June 17th, 2020
- Dear Journal: That's some amendment, that First Amendment; let's use it - The Daily World - June 17th, 2020
- Barr Threatens Suit To Stop Boltons Book Because The First Amendment Is, Like, More Of A Suggestion Really - Above the Law - June 17th, 2020
- NASCAR tossed out First Amendment and more letters to the editors - Chattanooga Times Free Press - June 17th, 2020
- Snap's decision to restrict Trump is within its First Amendment rights, CEO says - CNBC - June 17th, 2020
- First Amendment rights? Only for the Left - Must Read Alaska - June 17th, 2020
- "Vocational Training Is Speech Protected by the First Amendment" - Reason - June 17th, 2020
- A North Carolina professor who sparked outrage with his tweets still has his job. Why? It's called the First Amendment. - USA TODAY - June 17th, 2020
- Opinion: 1st Amendment rights apparently only apply to the left - Juneau Empire - June 17th, 2020
- If you're planning to take part in protests, know your rights. Read this. - CNN - June 17th, 2020
- Opinion: Trump's Antifa crackdown treads on First Amendment - The Detroit News - June 17th, 2020
- First Amendment Rights and Twitter, Encryption Backdoors - Security Boulevard - June 1st, 2020
- Arrest of CNN Crew in Minneapolis a 'Violation of First Amendment' - Voice of America - June 1st, 2020
- Trump, Twitter and the First Amendment - The New York Times - June 1st, 2020
- First Amendment Group Opposes Webinars On Toll Roads - WUSF News - June 1st, 2020
- ACLU issues warning to police to protect First Amendment rights of protesters - KATC Lafayette News - June 1st, 2020
- Federal, California and Local Law Enforcement's Statement on the Death of George Floyd and Riots Says They Will Continue to Work Together to Protect... - June 1st, 2020
- First Amendment Legal Expert Floyd Abrams on Trump's Chilling Executive Order Designed to Kill Free Speech - Showbiz411 - June 1st, 2020
- DC mayor institutes curfew and urges calm after weekend of unrest - KEYT - June 1st, 2020
- Open season on the free press: Journalists targeted in attacks as U.S. protests rage - Reuters - June 1st, 2020
- RCFP condemns attacks against journalists covering protests - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - June 1st, 2020
- Day 3 of protests in Portland, Oregon over death of George Floyd - KGW.com - June 1st, 2020
- As Waves of Protest Surge Across America - The New York Times - June 1st, 2020
- Trump Executive Order Violates the First Amendment - SF Bay Area Indymedia - June 1st, 2020
- DC mayor urges calm after protests nearby the White House occur for second consecutive night - CNN International - June 1st, 2020
- Man with bow is expected to be charged; Salt Lake City chief decries officer who knocked down elderly man with a cane - Salt Lake Tribune - June 1st, 2020
- Content Moderation, Section 230, and The First Amendment - AAF - American Action Forum - May 29th, 2020
- Times Union takes First Amendment and Journalist of the Year, 11 other awards in statewide contest - Times Union - May 29th, 2020
- First Amendment May Protect Use of Trademarks As Artistic Expression - JD Supra - May 29th, 2020
- Strictly Legal: Is Fox News entitled to First Amendment protection? - The Cincinnati Enquirer - May 29th, 2020
- Facebook Keeps Touting The First Amendment To Justify Its Content Policies - AdExchanger - May 29th, 2020
- Trump vs. Twitter | Editorials | gjsentinel.com - The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel - May 29th, 2020
- Churches respond to COVID-19, First Amendment ruling - Morganton News Herald - May 29th, 2020
- 'The First Amendment is very clear': Sheriff's Office won't break up religious services for 'NY on PAUSE' violations - The Livingston County News - May 29th, 2020
- RCFP statement on Trump's social media executive order - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - May 29th, 2020
- WashU Expert: Trump attacks on Twitter betray free speech principles - Washington University in St. Louis Newsroom - May 29th, 2020
- Reexamining the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act | Morgan Lewis - Tech & Sourcing - JD Supra - May 29th, 2020
- Going to the dogs: the Ninth Circuit's erosion of trademark rights exclusive guest post - World Trademark Review - May 29th, 2020
- First Amendment Lawyer Dismisses Trumps Claim That Twitter Is Stifling Free Speech: He Doesnt Want Critics to Have a Chance to Respond - Mediaite - May 29th, 2020
- Liberals Have Rediscovered the 10th Amendment's Value During the Coronavirus Pandemic - Reason - May 29th, 2020
- Former DNC chair Donna Brazile claims 'theres no First Amendment right to lie. Her co-hosts on The Five erupt in mockery. - TheBlaze - May 29th, 2020
- Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas calls for shrinking the First Amendment - Vox.com - May 14th, 2020
- What words make up a true threat? Well, that depends - The Mercury - May 14th, 2020
- Onslow Sheriffs department will not interfere with indoor church services - Jacksonville Daily News - May 14th, 2020
- Religious freedom is under threat in the courtroom - UPI.com - May 14th, 2020
- Neuberger Demands That Carney Lift Restrictions On Worshipping Now - First State Update - May 14th, 2020
- The First Amendment To the Constitution of The United States of America - The Suburban Times - May 11th, 2020
- Exposing Russian information operations does not violate the First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill - May 11th, 2020
- The Supreme Court Could Use the First Amendment to Unleash a Robocall Nightmare - The Atlantic - May 11th, 2020
- Divorcing couples have First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media, SJC rules - The Boston Globe - May 11th, 2020
- The Price of the First Amendment "Is That We Must Put Up With a Good Deal of Rubbish" - Reason - May 11th, 2020
- Societe Generale: Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document - GlobeNewswire - May 11th, 2020
- Governors Can't Suspend the First Amendment - Daily Signal - May 11th, 2020
- Houston strip club allowed to open, but without dancers - KHOU.com - May 11th, 2020
- Lawsuit filed against Marco Island alleges first amendment violation - Marco News - May 4th, 2020
- First amendment rights should not be suppressed, even during pandemic The News Journal - The News Journal - May 4th, 2020
- Urgent Care Doctor Silenced By Youtube Says His First Amendment Rights Have Been Attacked - Sara A. Carter - May 4th, 2020
- 'ReOpen NC' Founder Has COVID-19, Says It Is Her First Amendment Right To Infect Others - Wonkette - May 4th, 2020
- A tale of two universities and one First Amendment - OneNewsNow - May 4th, 2020
- The Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment - Business Insider - Business Insider - April 18th, 2020
- New podcast: Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds - GetReligion - April 18th, 2020
- Students Don't "Shed Their Freedom of Speech at the Schoolhouse Gate" - Reason - April 18th, 2020
- Teenager Who Shared Coronavirus Infection on Instagram Threatened With Arrest By Police, Lawsuit Says - Newsweek - April 18th, 2020
- Tea Party president says he was threatened with arrest for planning protest on Newton Green - New Jersey Herald - April 18th, 2020
- Legal expert: Trumps liberate Tweets incite insurrection and thats illegal - AlterNet - April 18th, 2020
- Lawmakers say Walz order is a violation of The First Amendment - KWLM (Willmar Radio) - April 18th, 2020
- With the public's need to know greater than ever, the D&C fights for info on outbreak - Democrat & Chronicle - April 18th, 2020
- Real-time updates: Drive-through coronavirus testing available in Grays Harbor County this weekend - KING5.com - April 18th, 2020