قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / World / As Trump said, will the repeal of Article 230 promote freedom of speech?

As Trump said, will the repeal of Article 230 promote freedom of speech?

President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act on December 23, partly because legislators did not take steps to repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act. The House of Representatives voted against the veto on Monday, which is currently leading to the veto. Senate.

The President threatened to veto the US$740 billion defense bill earlier this month if Section 230 is not abolished. According to CNN, the national defense bill will include increased salaries for U.S. soldiers, modernization of equipment, and provisions for stricter review before troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Germany.

On Tuesday night, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a parallel pandemic relief bill to a bill passed by Congress last week that would seek to increase direct payments to individuals from Trump and Democrats. (Increased from US$600 to US$2,000) and abolished. The provisions of Article 230 and laws related to election fraud research.


People criticize section 230 as a means for social media companies to censor speech on their platforms. Trump has marked or deleted several articles on Twitter and has repeatedly called for the repeal of the legislation. He said that repealing Article 230 would promote freedom of speech.

In May, an executive order on the prevention of online censorship was issued, which stated: “The purpose of Article 230 is not to allow a small number of companies to grow into giants controlling important channels for their country’s discourse. They are under the guise of forums to promote public debate, and Then let these behemoths gain full immunity and let them use their power to censor the content they don’t like and silence their opinions.”

The executive order specifically requires Twitter to “selectively decide[ing] Put warning labels on certain tweets in a way that clearly reflects political bias. “

“According to reports, Twitter never seems to put such a tag on another politician̵

7;s tweet. Just last week, on behalf of Adam Schiff (Adam Schiff) [D-Calif.] Touting the long-lost Russian collusion scam continued to mislead his followers, and Twitter did not flag these tweets. Not surprisingly, the official responsible for the so-called “site integrity” boasted of his political bias in his own tweets. “

According to Reuters, the Center for Democracy Technology (CDT), funded by Facebook, Google and Twitter, filed a lawsuit against the executive order in June. The complaint held that the order violated the First Amendment. Reuters reported earlier this month that the lawsuit had been dismissed because the order was directed at federal agencies rather than social media companies to limit the scope of Section 230.

In September, Senator Martha Blackburn (R-Tenn), Senator Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wick (R-Miss.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) tried to reform. Not to repeal Article 230 to restrict the content that social media companies can adjust while maintaining freedom of responsibility.

Blackburn said: “We do believe that Article 230 must be revisited rather than repealed, which is very important.”

A few days ago, Trump has received support from other elected officials, including representatives Lance Gooden (R-Texas) and Graham, who have pledged not to cover the veto of the National Defense Bill to repeal the 230th.

According to Roll Call, in the aisle, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi also opposed Section 230, calling it “the real gift of big technology.” However, Pelosi did vote to veto the defense bill.


Article 230 of the 1996 Communications Regulations Act was written by then representatives Chris Cox (R-Calif.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), allowing Internet companies to conduct self-regulation , Thereby restricting the government’s control of service providers to today’s huge Internet industry.

According to the External Relations Committee, companies such as Twitter and Facebook cannot be considered as publishers, which means they act as custodians and are not responsible for what people post on their platforms, but can act as hosts in an “honest” capacity people.

Some politicians believe that the platform’s ability to act as its own moderator allows social media companies to censor speech, while others claim that social media companies are not doing enough to deal with misinformation and other issues on the platform.

In an interview with The Atlantic in November, former President Barack Obama talked about the danger of misinformation on social media.

Obama said: “I don’t take full responsibility for technology companies because it predates social media. It already exists. But social media is already accelerating it… If we don’t have the ability to distinguish truth from truth. It’s wrong, then by definition , The market of ideas is not working. By definition, our democratic system is not working.”

The bottom line is that you cannot sue social media companies for content posted on their platforms, but you can delete content that does not comply with its rules, guidelines, and policies. For example, Twitter has the right to report or delete posts that encourage violence, promote terrorism, involve the sexual exploitation of children, or include a series of other safety issues.

On October 28, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg (Mark Zuckerberg) testified before the Senate Commerce Committee concerning Section 230. He said: “Without Section 230, the platform may be responsible for everything people say. The platform may censor more content to avoid legal risks, and it will be less likely to invest in technology that enables people to express themselves in new ways. .”

Zuckerberg went on to say that Congress should update the law to ensure that it “operates as expected.”

In response to Zuckerberg’s testimony, Jeff Kosseff, assistant professor of cybersecurity law at the U.S. Naval Academy, said: “I think if you cancel Section 230, you will see everything from large technology companies to small All platform news sites in the community are much stricter in allowing them to post user content on their sites, because they will suddenly take a lot of responsibility for these comments.”

Many people who think that marking is stifling freedom of speech have turned to Parler, a platform that considers itself an unbiased social networking service. So far, Trump has not expressed dissatisfaction with the website.

Parler stated in its community guidelines: “We prefer to make decisions about what everyone sees and what everyone hears. Under no circumstances will Parler decide what to delete or filter based on this decision, or to delete it. Account. Opinions expressed in the content of the dispute”.

The First Amendment of the Constitution stipulates: “Congress shall not enact laws concerning religious beliefs or laws prohibiting their free exercise; prohibiting the right to freedom of speech or freedom of the press; or the right of the people to peaceful assembly, and to lodge a complaint with the government, requesting They filed an appeal.”

The “First Amendment” guarantees the right to freedom of speech, but does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of speech.

In the 1919 Supreme Court case Schenk v. United States, Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes (Oliver Wendell Holmes) concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech, and that such speech poses “obvious and present great danger of evil.” In other words, if people advocate violence or harm to others, the use of speech is not protected by the Constitution.



Repealing Article 230 will not promote greater freedom of speech, because social media companies and other Internet platforms may restrict content on their websites to avoid liability and related overwhelming legal fees.

In addition, clear and current dangerous rules exempt speech that incites violence and are protected by the Constitution. Social media companies will not restrict the rights of the First Amendment by marking or deleting posts that may cause harm or violence to other users.

Source link