# Trump seeks to end free speech... **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 28, 2020, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606 "2020-05-28T14:35:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/21 "2020-05-28T17:33:53Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > I don’t know. With five Trump lovers on Scotus, don’t be so sure. For a guy who looks like the adipose detritus of liposuction surgery, he sure gets around. It’s really all about confidence and never taking no for answer, isn’t it. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/22 "2020-05-28T17:35:47Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > That would affect FOX News as much as anyone else. > > Read another way, it would affect cosnservative websites every bit as much as it does liberal websites. > > I think conservative websites benefit far more than liberal ones from the current open internet and liberals have lots of money to sue them too. > > So, not gonna happen. IANAL, but my understanding is that Fox News is not treated like a carrier in the same way social media are. Under certain circumstances, they can be sued for deliberately defaming people. They produce the information, which is fundamentally different from Facebook or Twitter which just provides the platform. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/23 "2020-05-28T17:39:55Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > … > Trump could go at them on these grounds, I think. I’m not sure if an executive order can overturn Section 230, but he could also claim that the carriers are biased and going beyond the limited editorial work they were allowed under Section 230, and are in violation of it by \*\*editing \*\*based on political viewpoint and not the egregiousness of the post itself. He could try to make the case that Section 230 was put into place to allow such services to take down truly dangerous or illegal material like child porn, bomb-making tips, threats against other persons, etc. He could argue that ‘fact checking’ a post about mail fraud doesn’t come anywhere close to what Section 230 is for. > > I think the Section 230 angle is the only one Trump has, and even that would be a tough sell in court. Removing section 230 would also create chaos, and either force the big social media companies to heavily censor content or face constant liability lawsuits, or allow absolutely anything to be oublished including Russian and Chinese disinformation bots and other malicious content. In other words, this would backfire in Trump’s face. But he’ll probably still do it. (My emphasis) Does Twitter posting a comment next to trump’s tweets suggesting that readers should fact check his tweet (and then providing a link to said “fact”) constitute **editing**? I mean, we’re not even supposed to edit quoted material here on the SDMB. We can comment, disparage, rip to shreds, etc., all we want. Just don’t tamper with the original. Twitter is not tampering with the content of his tweets. I don’t see the appended comment as editing or as censorship. Am I all wet on this? ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/24 "2020-05-28T17:56:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How does Reddit manage it? > > All subreddits censor based on the whims of the moderators who run them. Certainly there is no “right” to post whatever you want and you (general “you”) can be banned or have a post deleted for any reason whatsoever. Or none at all. > > They are a huge site yet manage this with no problem. Users may complain but that is about it. How does this message board manage it? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/25 "2020-05-28T17:57:54Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This is Trump distracting from what is happening. > > He’s wagging the dog. Bingo. He wants to talk about anything besides 100,000 dead Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/26 "2020-05-28T17:59:23Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > You know if a platform is in favor of free speech then the solution would have been to act accordingly. When platforms regulate speech and do so with obvious bias then don’t act shocked when the regulators come for them. There’s usually a bigger power in the jungle. This seems a strange position to take. If I own a newspaper, and only publish articles by liberal writers, is that stifling free speech? Or are only “platforms” subjected to your strange concept of free speech? How are you defining “platform” anyway? Is Reddit a “platform”? Is this message board a “platform”? ---
**Author:** ![Bijou\_Drains](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bijou_drains/32/2814_2.png) [@Bijou\_Drains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bijou_Drains)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/27 "2020-05-28T18:00:31Z")
If Trump really has billions he could easily setup his own Trumpitter. And his cult will follow him there. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/28 "2020-05-28T18:05:35Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > (My emphasis) > > Does Twitter posting a comment next to trump’s tweets suggesting that readers should fact check his tweet (and then providing a link to said “fact”) constitute **editing**? I mean, we’re not even supposed to edit quoted material here on the SDMB. We can comment, disparage, rip to shreds, etc., all we want. Just don’t tamper with the original. Twitter is not tampering with the content of his tweets. I don’t see the appended comment as editing or as censorship. Am I all wet on this? IANAL, but I’m pretty sure you are not even slightly damp. Personally, I think I’m going to enjoy hearing the judge’s opinion if the White House actually decides to argue in a court filing that appending additional, factual information to an unaltered text somehow constitutes censorship. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/29 "2020-05-28T18:09:22Z")
I’m not sure. But ‘fact checking’ is a dangerous path, because even if every fact check is correct, it can still be used as a political weapon if both sides lie and only one side gets ‘fact checked’. Here’s the liability limitation language in section 230: > [@](#): > > Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) 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; or > (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1] So it seems to me that he’d either have to remove section 230, or somehow argue that his tweets do not constitute ‘obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable’ speech. If Trump’s lawyers could show that politicians on the left do not come u der the same scrutiny, then the editorial powers u der sec 230 have been twisted for political ends, and objectively based on the violent, harrassing or otherwise objectionable material in Trump’s posts. My opinion is that Trump is going down a dangerous path by using the power of government to solve his personal spat with twitter. What he should do if he doesn’t like Twitter is to take his dog and pony show to another provider like Gab. He has every right to do so, and he’d probably take millions of users with him and force the media to report on what he says there. Twitter would lose the free advertising it gets from Trump, and Gab or whatever service he lands on. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/30 "2020-05-28T18:14:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How does Reddit manage it? While on the whole I think Sam Stone’s post is an articulate analysis of the morass surrounding online interactions and Section 230, the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996 and Facebook and Twitter didn’t carve out a special exemption so much as take advantage of a pre-existing one. Section 230 protects pretty much any entity that publishes third party content. Amazon user reviews, forum posts, newspaper and blog comments, videos on youtube and vimeo are all possible because the ‘publisher’ is protected by Section 230. If online services cannot be guaranteed that protection, I suspect we would see a lot of sites proactively burn anything that they do not directly create if it’s at all feasible without destroying said website’s core appeal. I am not sure that I believe the FCC will actually change anything about how they interpret Section 230 simply because the knock-on effects of what people expect the internet to be for would be so great. ---
**Author:** ![74westy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/74westy/32/3950_2.png) [@74westy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/74westy)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/31 "2020-05-28T18:18:49Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > This seems a strange position to take. If I own a newspaper, and only publish articles by liberal writers, is that stifling free speech? > > Or are only “platforms” subjected to your strange concept of free speech? How are you defining “platform” anyway? Is Reddit a “platform”? Is this message board a “platform”? Trump (and octopus) want to protect fee speech by telling businesses what they can and can’t say. ---
**Author:** ![pjacks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e19adc/32.png) [@pjacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pjacks)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/32 "2020-05-28T18:24:46Z")
It took a couple decades, but Republicans finally support the Fairness Doctrine I guess. Would it be so bad if we implemented an Internet Fairness Doctrine? Civil discourse seemed to be pretty decent back in the day, & stuff like Fox News, Limbaugh and Brietbart didn’t exist. Twitter & Facebook have been a cancer on society anyway, and are shameless foreign propaganda tools. It’s hard for me to feel bad for these social media parasites right now. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/33 "2020-05-28T18:28:40Z")
So, **octopus** , you’re saying that you oppose Trump’s move to punish companies for exercising and promoting free speech? Is your opposition to this move sufficient for you to reconsider your overall support of Trump? ---
**Author:** ![Icarus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/icarus/32/72_2.png) [@Icarus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Icarus)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/34 "2020-05-28T18:41:26Z")
> [@pjacks](#): > > Twitter & Facebook have been a cancer on society anyway, and are shameless foreign propaganda tools. It’s hard for me to feel bad for these social media parasites right now. Well, that may be, but nowhere do I see Trump attempting to get rid of them. Instead, he is attempting to control them, and bend them to his advantage. So, as much as I don’t love them, for the reasons you state, I would rather they are independent of Trump’s control. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/35 "2020-05-28T18:48:07Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > IANAL, but I’m pretty sure you are not even slightly damp. > > Personally, I think I’m going to enjoy hearing the judge’s opinion if the White House actually decides to argue in a court filing that appending additional, factual information to an unaltered text somehow constitutes censorship. From today’s [NYTimes](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/28/technology/trump-twitter-fact-check.html): > [@](#): > > …Since then, White House officials have drafted an executive order that would make it easier for federal regulators to argue that companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter are suppressing free speech when they suspend users or delete posts. The executive order may come as early as Thursday… B-b-b-b-ut Twitter ISN’T suspending trump or deleting his posts (though I wish they would). So what’s his point? I know. Silly question. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/36 "2020-05-28T19:28:30Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > I don’t know. With five Trump lovers on Scotus, don’t be so sure. Well, there isnt. Kavanaugh is the only trump pawn or should I say butt-monkey? Roberts\* leans\* right, but is no fan of trump. Alito is a strict constructionist and a defender of the 1st ad. But otherwise quite conservative. Gorsuch is very conservative, and owes trump- but- he is also a constructionist. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/37 "2020-05-28T19:47:19Z")
I think Thomas is the most predictably partisan member of the supposedly non-partisan Court. The others occasionally disagree with how one would expect them to rule if they were the lackey of the Republicans, and as cynical as I am, I don’t believe the conspiracy theories that they deliberately throw an occasional bone in matters of little consequence to make themselves appear non-partisan when they rule the way their masters want on the issues that matter. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/38 "2020-05-28T20:20:41Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > I think Thomas is the most predictably partisan member of the supposedly non-partisan Court. The others occasionally disagree with how one would expect them to rule if they were the lackey of the Republicans, and as cynical as I am, I don’t believe the conspiracy theories that they deliberately throw an occasional bone in matters of little consequence to make themselves appear non-partisan when they rule the way their masters want on the issues that matter. Yeah, Thomas, while no trump fan, is very politically conservative, and not that good of a jurist, either. Thomas doesnt seem to have much in the way of opinions, either. Trump can count on his vote. Roberts, Alito and Gorsuch are respected jurists, and can be counted on to protect the Constitution. Of course “protect” is open to interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/39 "2020-05-28T20:39:01Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > IANAL, but my understanding is that Fox News is not treated like a carrier in the same way social media are. Under certain circumstances, they can be sued for deliberately defaming people. They produce the information, which is fundamentally different from Facebook or Twitter which just provides the platform. FOX News has websites too. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2020, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606/40 "2020-05-28T20:50:26Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Roberts\* leans\* right, but is no fan of trump. Roberts is a very reliable conservative. Conservatives think he is somewhow in the middle because of the healthcare vote but that is only one vote of many. > [@](#): > > Our analysis shows that the chief justice’s voting record is as conservative as those of his most extreme current and former colleagues — Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Antonin Scalia. In all 42 split-decision cases that the chief justice has presided over involving racial minorities, immigrants, workers and abortion, he voted for conservative outcomes 100 percent of the time. > > \ > > Our study suggests otherwise. But the chief justice’s strong public defense of the court’s integrity has had the effect of camouflaging a subtle, long-game strategy to tilt the court’s jurisprudence decidedly to the right. That “thousand cut” strategy can be seen most clearly in the past generation of reproductive-rights decisions, whose cumulative effect has been to restrict abortion in most states. Although Roe v. Wade is effectively dead in much of the country, few Americans could name the rulings that have undermined it. Other areas that have been targeted by the court’s conservatives include laws supporting organized labor and regulating campaign finance. > > SOURCE: [Don’t Be Fooled. Chief Justice John Roberts Is as Partisan as They Come.](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/opinion/john-roberts-supreme-court.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-seeks-to-end-free-speech/854606.md?page=3)