Trump signs executive order to prevent social media from censoring protected speech

President Trump, joined by United States Attorney General William Barr, signed an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship | May 28, 2020

From The White House:

BREAKING: President Trump signs order to fight online censorship

Moments ago in the Oval Office, President Trump signed an Executive Order to fight online censorship by technology corporations, including social media platforms.

Tech bias is a major issue facing our democracy. It challenges the free exchange of ideas and public debate that protects our civil liberties. Every citizen—liberal, conservative, or otherwise—has a right to be heard and treated fairly online.

🎬 WATCH: President Trump announces executive action to fight online censorship

In the next few hours, you may hear a lot about this Executive Order. Leftwing media will claim it addresses a fake problem because tech bias doesn’t exist. Democrats in Congress will say the President is exceeding his authority. Some in the Beltway establishment will say the order doesn’t do that much in the first place.

All of these are lies. Here are a few of the key actions in President Trump’s order:
Makes it U.S. policy that platforms who selectively edit, censor, or are not acting in “good faith” with regards to content will not receive the liability protection included in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Directs the Commerce Department to petition the FCC to make clarifying rules on Section 230 in line with U.S. policy

Helps stop millions of taxpayer dollars from being wasted by federal agencies on advertising with biased social media platforms

Ensures the Justice Department will review more than 16,000 complaints about politically motivated censorship that were collected by the White House in advance of a Social Media Summit held last year

Mobilizes State Attorneys General—who have massive subpoena and consumer protection authorities—to ensure social media platforms are not engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices

Acts as federal law and lists the many ways in which tech platforms act with bias against viewpoints they disagree with

Massive corporations that treat millions of American citizens unfairly shouldn’t expect special privileges and protections under the law. With President Trump’s Executive Order today, our country is one step closer to having an honest, fair public debate.

Read President Trump’s Executive Order on censorship here.

MORE: 33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Bias

The Democrats are the enemy of the American people

Sen. Cruz Op-ed: The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment
June 1, 2014 | Sen. Ted Cruz
From The Wall Street Journal:

For two centuries there has been bipartisan agreement that American democracy depends on free speech. Alas, more and more, the modern Democratic Party has abandoned that commitment and has instead been trying to regulate the speech of the citizenry.

We have seen President Obama publicly rebuke the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; the Obama IRS inquire of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers; the Federal Communications Commission proposing to put government monitors in newsrooms; and Sen. Harry Reid regularly slandering private citizens on the Senate floor for their political speech.

But just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, it does. Senate Democrats have promised a vote this year on a constitutional amendment to expressly repeal the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.

You read that correctly. Forty-one Democrats have signed on to co-sponsor New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall's proposed amendment to give Congress plenary power to regulate political speech. The text of the amendment says that Congress could regulate "the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to federal elections." The amendment places no limitations whatsoever on Congress's new power.

Two canards are put forth to justify this broad authority. First, "money is not speech." And second, "corporations have no free speech rights."

Neither contention bears even minimal scrutiny. Speech is more than just standing on a soap box yelling on a street corner. For centuries the Supreme Court has rightly concluded that free speech includes writing and distributing pamphlets, putting up billboards, displaying yard signs, launching a website, and running radio and television ads. Every one of those activities requires money. Distributing the Federalist Papers or Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" required money. If you can prohibit spending money, you can prohibit virtually any form of effective speech.

As for the idea that the Supreme Court got it wrong in Citizens United because corporations have no First Amendment rights, that too is demonstrably false. The New York Times is a corporation. The television network NBC is a corporation. Book publisher Simon & Schuster is a corporation. Paramount Pictures is a corporation. Nobody would reasonably argue that Congress could restrict what they say—or what money they spend distributing their views, books or movies—merely because they are not individual persons.

Proponents of the amendment also say it would just "repeal Citizens United" or "regulate big money in politics." That is nonsense. Nothing in the amendment is limited to corporations, or to nefarious billionaires. It gives Congress power to regulate—and ban—speech by everybody.

Indeed, the text of the amendment obliquely acknowledges that Americans' free-speech rights would be eliminated: It says "[n]othing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press." Thus, The New York Times is protected from congressional power; individual citizens, exercising political speech, are not.

If this amendment were adopted, the following would likely be deemed constitutional:

Congress could prohibit the National Rifle Association from distributing voter guides letting citizens know politicians' records on the Second Amendment.

Congress could prohibit the Sierra Club from running political ads criticizing politicians for their environmental policies.

Congress could penalize pro-life (or pro-choice) groups for spending money to urge their views of abortion.

Congress could prohibit labor unions from organizing workers (an in-kind expenditure) to go door to door urging voters to turn out.

Congress could criminalize pastors making efforts to get their parishioners to vote.

Congress could punish bloggers expending any resources to criticize the president.

Congress could ban books, movies (watch out Michael Moore) and radio programs—anything not deemed "the press"—that might influence upcoming elections.

One might argue, "surely bloggers would be protected." But Senate Democrats expressly excluded bloggers from protection under their proposed media-shield law, because bloggers are not "covered journalists."

One might argue, "surely movies would be exempt." But the Citizens United case—expressly maligned by President Obama during his 2010 State of the Union address—concerned the federal government trying to fine a filmmaker for distributing a movie criticizing Hillary Clinton.

One might argue, "surely books would be exempt." But the Obama administration, in the Citizens United oral argument, explicitly argued that the federal government could ban books that contained political speech.

The contemplated amendment is simply wrong. No politician should be immune from criticism. Congress has too much power already—it should never have the power to silence citizens.

Thankfully, any constitutional amendment must first win two-thirds of the vote in both houses of Congress. Then three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve the proposed amendment. There's no chance that Sen. Udall's amendment will clear either hurdle. Still, it's a reflection of today's Democratic disrespect for free speech that an attempt would even be made. There was a time, not too long ago, when free speech was a bipartisan commitment.

John Stuart Mill had it right: If you disagree with political speech, the best cure is more speech, not less. The First Amendment has served America well for 223 years. When Democrats tried something similar in 1997, Sen. Ted Kennedy was right to say: "In the entire history of the Constitution, we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is no time to start."

Source

Verizon hates free speech

Court case renews debate on US 'Open Internet' rules

AFP
Rob Lever

Debate is back on in Washington on US regulations on "net neutrality" which bar Internet broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against services or content.

A court case for which arguments were held this month brought by Verizon, one of the largest Internet service providers, challenges the "Open Internet" rule approved in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission.

The seemingly arcane rule, or changes to it, could have an important impact: some say it may determine whether fixed broadband providers can control what services flow throw their networks.

"These rules provide an important safeguard both for innovation and investment on the Internet," said David Sohn, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, which backs the FCC rules.

Sohn said that if Verizon has its way, it and other providers like Comcast or AT&T could "play favorites," by blocking or degrading services such as YouTube or Netflix to promote their own offerings or that of their partners.

"Every user every day benefits from this rule for the services they use, whether it's YouTube ot Twitter or something else," Sohn told AFP.

But Verizon and its allies argue the FCC lacks authority to interfere with their business, and that Congress never decided these companies were regulated utilities or "common carriers."

"It is not up to the FCC to decide these issues on its own," said Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker, arguing the case before the US Court of Appeals in Washington earlier this month.

"It has no implied authority, no express authority.. and it's highly unlikely that Congress would have delegated authority in such a convoluted way."

The FCC, in a 3-2 majority decision December 2010, said it imposed the rules to ensure that the Internet "has no gatekeepers limiting innovation and communication through the network."

But participants at the appeals court hearing said two of the three judges appeared inclined to overturn the FCC rules, although the decision could stem from either jurisdictional or fundamental legal arguments.

Whatever the appeals court decides, the debate is likely to continue. Either side could appeal to the US Supreme Court, and the issue could end up in Congress, which has been divided on the issue.

Amid the US debate, the European Commission this month adopted a similar "net neutrality" provision barring any blocking or throttling of competing or data-heavy services.

With the stakes high, Washington lobby groups on both sides have been ramping up their efforts.

"This affects most Americans who watch a move on Netflix or who make a phone call on Vonage," said Pantelis Michalopoulos, lawyer for parties arguing in support of the FCC rules.

Michalopoulos said companies like Verizon "have the incentive and ability to discriminate" against service and could, for example, degrade Netflix to the point where viewers would see blank screens.

But another Washington lawyer work works on tech issues, and who requested not to be cited because of clients he represents in the sector, said he did not believe service providers would try to dramatically reshape what flows through their networks.

"It would be commercially infeasible to offer an Internet service if you couldn't get to the big sites," the lawyer said.

More likely, the attorney said, would be deals mirroring what is taking place in the wireless space, which is not subject to the same rules, and where providers offer premium packages on an exclusive basis, such as NFL football games.

Firms like Verizon fear that if the FCC has its way, the agency would be in a position to more tightly regulate broadband as a public utility, which might mean regulating prices as well.

Scott Cleland at the advocacy group NetCompetition, which backs Verizon in the case, said overturning the FCC rules would bring free-market economics back to the Internet.

"Consumers would be able to pay less, not more for broadband, if consumers no longer were forced to shoulder the full broadband cost of Internet access by subsidizing the biggest edge companies like Netflix and Google-YouTube, which consume about half of the Internet's peak traffic," Cleland said on his blog.

But Jennifer Yeh at the advocacy group Free Press said in a blog post that the dangers are greater if Verizon overturns the rules.

"The FCC needs to restore its authority to ensure that network providers can't block or discriminate against any online content. Otherwise, we run the risk of the Internet going the way of cable -- where the providers determine what content we see, charge us different prices based on what content we get, and extract tolls from Internet companies for delivering that content to users," she said.

Source:click here

Sign the petition to preserve net neutrality.

More information:click here

This is bad. If you are a Verizon customer you may want to tell them that you won't allow it. If you don't they're going to decide what you do and where you go on the net. Not only that but this could be misused by those in power to silence anyone against them. This is a slippery slope and it is one that should be avoided. Let's hope the courts uphold the net neutrality laws.

Ron Paul delegate pushed around

Ron Paul Delegate Sues City of St. Peters Over Caucus Arrest

Brent Stafford Claims Constitutional Rights Violated

By William Browning | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 16 hrs ago.

During the heated Republican primary and caucus season in the spring of 2012, an incident in St. Charles County, Mo., led to the arrest of a Ron Paul delegate at a local caucus. Brent Stafford is now suing the city of St. Peters, Mo., and police officer Tim Hickey over his incarceration of March 17, 2012. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Eastern Missouri filed a lawsuit in federal court Monday on behalf of Stafford. The plaintiff seeks remediation for his incarceration, which he feels violated his First Amendment rights to free speech.

* The 13-page legal complaint in U.S. District Court demands a jury trial against the city and Hickey. Five points are brought against the defendants, including false arrest and malicious prosecution.

* Stafford led Paul's campaign for St. Charles County last year. He was also a member of the county's Republican central committee. It was this central committee that hosted the caucus at Francis Howell High School.

* The plaintiff alleges two police officers, hired by GOP leaders to provide security at the meeting, were told to "expect 'trouble'" from Paul supporters. Stafford claims in his complaint that the "'trouble' ... was that Ron Paul would win."

* Stafford also contends he would have been elected the caucus chair had Eugene Dokes, chairman of the committee, run the meeting according to proper procedure. The plaintiff alleges nominees for the chair of the caucus were closed after a single nomination.

* The plaintiff alleges he was arrested for trespassing even though dozens of people remained in the high school gymnasium after being ordered to depart or face arrest. Stafford was arrested on a public sidewalk outside the building. A video of Stafford's arrest, labeled Exhibit 1 in the filing, shows the events as they unfolded outside the school. Several other videos of the caucus exists even though caucus leaders tried to ban video and audio recordings of the event.

* The Associated Press reveals the plaintiff was acquitted of his trespassing charge by a municipal judge in St. Peters. Stafford was jailed for three hours following the failed caucus.

* The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports the city had not received a copy of the lawsuit as of Monday afternoon. City officials have not yet responded to the lawsuit.

* The plaintiff believes his rights under the First and 14th Amendments were violated, his person was unreasonably searched without a warrant, his liberty was deprived without due process and his liberty was deprived for three hours.

* In addition to attorney's fees, Stafford seeks unspecified monetary damages. Five counts are brought against the city including violations of rights, false arrest, malicious prosecution, false arrest under state law and malicious prosecution under state law.

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics.

Source:click here