{"id":3489,"date":"2020-10-29T16:38:27","date_gmt":"2020-10-29T21:38:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=3489"},"modified":"2020-10-29T16:38:27","modified_gmt":"2020-10-29T21:38:27","slug":"this-tweet-has-been-removed-the-basics-of-whats-going-on-in-the-war-between-trump-and-twitter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/?p=3489","title":{"rendered":"This Tweet Has Been Removed:\u202fThe basics of what\u2019s going on\u202fin\u202fthe war between\u202fTrump\u202fand\u202fTwitter\u202f"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sarah Ryan<\/i>\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Associate Editor<\/i>\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 202<\/i>2<\/i>\u202f\u00a0\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Twitter\u202fmade the\u202fnews<\/a>\u202fonce again\u202fyesterday\u202fafter\u202fremoving\u202fa tweet by Dr. Scott Atlas, one of\u202fPresident\u202fTrump\u2019s main\u202fWhite House\u202fCoronavirus advisors. The tweet, which questioned the effectiveness of wearing masks in combatting the virus, was said to have violated a\u202fpolicy<\/a>\u202fon misleading information relating to COVID-19.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This comes just days after Twitter was\u202fcriticized\u202ffor \u201climiting sharing\u201d of a New\u202fYork Post\u202farticle<\/a>\u202fbecause it exposed private information (read:\u202fpersonal\u202femail addresses) and contained material obtained\u202fthrough\u202fhacking.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Allegations that\u202fbig tech companies are guilty of \u201ccensoring\u201d information on their social media platforms are far from new.\u202fA Pew Research Center\u202fsurvey<\/a>\u202fconducted in 2018 revealed that 72% of the public thought that social media platforms actively censored political views.\u202fResults from this year\u2019s version of the same\u202fsurvey<\/a>\u202ffound roughly the same results.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Even the President\u202fhas\u202fwaged a war against Twitter. His\u202fcriticisms\u202fof\u202fTwitter\u202ffor \u201csilencing conservative viewpoints<\/a>\u201d escalated\u202fto threats\u202fof\u202f\u201cshutdowns\u201d\u202for\u202fat least\u202fheavy\u202fregulation in\u202fresponse to\u202fthe site adding a\u202ffact-check warning<\/a>\u202fto tweets that claimed that\u202f\u201cmail-in ballots\u202fare\u202ffraudulent\u201d without any evidence.\u202fNot long after,\u202fTrump signed an\u202fexecutive order<\/a>\u202fattempting\u202fto punish social media companies.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act\u202f<\/b>\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s executive order was\u202faimed at\u202fSection 230<\/a>\u202fof the Communications Decency Act,\u202fwhich has been deemed \u201cone of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet<\/a>.\u201d\u202fSection 230 includes various guidelines for regulating interactive computer services. Today, interactive computer services include social media companies like Twitter and Facebook,\u202for\u202fbasically any online service that publishes third-party content.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

One authority\u00a0Section 230 grants to\u00a0social media sites\u2019\u202fis an\u00a0ability to regulate the content that appears on their platforms. The statute\u202fprovides\u202fthat,\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

“No… interactive\u202fcomputer service…\u202fshall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”\u202f\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This provision gives social media companies\u202fexpansive authority to regulate speech on their platforms, thereby\u202fpermitting them\u202flegal immunity<\/a>\u202ffor \u201cgood faith\u201d efforts to remove\u202fwhat they perceive to be objectionable content.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But<\/b>\u202f<\/b>what about<\/b>\u202f<\/b>freedom of<\/b>\u202f<\/b>speech?<\/b>\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Among other\u202findividualistic\u202fvalues, Americans cherish the\u202fFirst Amendment<\/a>\u2019s guarantee of\u202ffree speech.\u202fThrough decades of\u202fcase law<\/a>, the Supreme Court of the United States has tried to determine\u202fwhat constitutes free speech and what does not.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Social media sites generally\u202fdo not come within the First Amendment\u2019s jurisdiction since they are owned by\u202fprivate companies<\/a>.\u202fIn a way, Section 230 was intended to\u202fpreserve freedom of expression on the internet\u202fby safeguarding companies from liability\u202fby\u202fspecifically saying\u202fthat “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This provision\u202fprotects<\/a>\u202fsites that publish third-party content, like Twitter, from being held liable for\u202fmost of\u202fthe content they produce and publish.\u202fThrough this\u202fqualification,\u202fonline intermediaries\u202fare able\u202fto\u202favoid being regulated as\u202fpublishers<\/a>, and distance themselves from the content that users generate and post onto their platforms.\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

On the other hand, the \u201cgood faith\u201d provision of Section 230\u202fprotects social media sites against claims that the First Amendment gives people the power to post anything they want to\u202fwithout it being taken down.\u202fIn the past, sites like\u202fTwitter<\/a>\u202fand\u202fFacebook<\/a>\u202fhave\u202frefrained from heavy\u202fregulation of speech on\u202ftheir platforms,\u202foften\u202frelying on users to report\u202fquestionable\u202fcontent, and then flagging or removing anything\u202fthat violates\u202ftheir\u202frules and policies<\/a>.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Since these platforms have become forums\u202ffor virtual conversations about topics from politics to science, this effectively\u202fsubjects some public discourse to private regulations that often diverge from legal understandings of free speech.\u202fFor example, both\u202fFacebook<\/a>\u202fand\u202fTwitter<\/a>\u202fhave\u202ftheir own\u202fpolicies banning what they\u202fwould classify as hate speech, which is not actually\u202fprohibited<\/a>\u202fby the First Amendment.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

With the upcoming election and ongoing global pandemic heightening the spread of\u202fmisinformation<\/a>, some social media sites have adjusted their community norms and\u202fpolicies<\/a>\u202fin response. Twitter flagged a\u202ftweet<\/a>\u202ffrom the President himself because the tweet violated their updated rules about \u201cspreading misleading and potentially harmful information relating to COVID-19.\u201d\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Looking\u00a0<\/b>f<\/b>orward<\/b>\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The future of Section 230 is still up in the air. Politicians on both sides of the spectrum have called for its revision but for very different reasons.\u202fDemocrats<\/a>, including presidential nominee Joe Biden want tech companies to be held more accountable for\u202fextremist\u202fcontent\u202for content containing hate speech or misinformation. On the other hand,\u202fRepublicans<\/a>\u202fwant\u202fonline platforms to be held accountable for \u201cunlawfully censoring speech\u201d and \u201cknowingly facilitating egregious criminal\u202factivity online.\u201d\u202fIt is unclear what changes the rest of 2020 will bring.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Twitter\u202fmade the\u202fnews\u202fonce again\u202fyesterday\u202fafter\u202fremoving\u202fa tweet by Dr. Scott Atlas, one of\u202fPresident\u202fTrump\u2019s main\u202fWhite House\u202fCoronavirus advisors. The tweet, which questioned the effectiveness of wearing masks in combatting the virus, was said to have violated a\u202fpolicy\u202fon misleading information relating to COVID-19.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/p>\n

This comes just days after Twitter was\u202fcriticized\u202ffor \u201climiting sharing\u201d of a New\u202fYork Post\u202farticle\u202fbecause it exposed private information (read:\u202fpersonal\u202femail addresses) and contained material obtained\u202fthrough\u202fhacking.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/p>\n

Allegations that\u202fbig tech companies are guilty of \u201ccensoring\u201d information on their social media platforms are far from new.\u202fA Pew Research Center\u202fsurvey\u202fconducted in 2018 revealed that 72% of the public thought that social media platforms actively censored political views.\u202fResults from this year\u2019s version of the same\u202fsurvey\u202ffound roughly the same results.\u202f\u202f\u00a0<\/p>\n

Even the President\u202fhas\u202fwaged a war against Twitter. His\u202fcriticisms\u202fof\u202fTwitter\u202ffor \u201csilencing conservative viewpoints\u201d escalated\u202fto threats\u202fof\u202f\u201cshutdowns\u201d\u202for\u202fat least\u202fheavy\u202fregulation in\u202fresponse to\u202fthe site adding a\u202ffact-check warning\u202fto tweets that claimed that\u202f\u201cmail-in ballots\u202fare\u202ffraudulent\u201d without any evidence.\u202fNot long after,\u202fTrump signed an\u202fexecutive order\u202fattempting\u202fto punish social media companies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[783,869,1205,2017,2023],"class_list":["post-3489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-facebook","tag-first-amendment","tag-journal-of-regulatory-compliance","tag-trump-administration","tag-twitter"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3489","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3489\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.luc.edu\/compliance\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}