Does Freedom of speech mean freedom from being fact checked?

[dylan winter]

Your orange fellah moved pretty fast on this one

within 24 hours of Twitter putting a fact checking link under a trump erronious assertion he delivered an Executive order - and had Billy Frog Boy standing over his shoulder as he signed it

is this a good thing?

Surely a Trump assertion should be regarded as incontrovertable fact in modern America

Trump is a good man

Trump is an honest man

many are saying it

"Macregors are ideal for Ocean going adventures"

"All rib drivers are curteous and thoughtful about other water users"

"It is only a .22 used for controlling rats"

"Ridgelines are the best vehicles ever made"

here he is saying that "News is Fake"

 

[Navig8tor]

Nothing to see here,  donnie is simply creating his own Ministry of Truth.

It's a most useful distraction from a death toll tipping over 6 figures..

I have visions of Miller and Kushner who we know are both incapable of thinking this shit up, they probably have a copy of1984 as their playbook cause they think it will surely make libbyrul heads explode.

 

[SloopJonB]

Will this survive even the packed SCOTUS?

 

[Mark K]

26 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

Your orange fellah moved pretty fast on this one

within 24 hours of Twitter putting a fact checking link under a trump erronious assertion he delivered an Executive order - and had Billy Frog Boy standing over his shoulder as he signed it

is this a good thing?

Surely a Trump assertion should be regarded as incontrovertable fact in modern America

Trump is a good man

Trump is an honest man

many are saying it

"Macregors are ideal for Ocean going adventures"

"All rib drivers are curteous and thoughtful about other water users"

"It is only a .22 used for controlling rats"

"Ridgelines are the best vehicles ever made"

here he is saying that "News is Fake"

This is a tactic which Trump is known for in his business life. Most subcontractors can be intimidated by threats of lawsuits. Almost no matter how ridiculous those suits may be, the sub knows it's likely they will be, win or lose, stuck with big legal fees. It's like a game of poker when people eyeball the others stacks. Now that Barr is acting as his lawyer...Trump's stack is to the effin' moon.  

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

Dylan - to your OP title, simply, No.   Being free to say what you want in no way means that you are insulated from hearing what anyone else thinks about what you say. 

That said - the social media platforms have liability protection from content transmitted on their platforms because they don't "constrain, create or control" ( paraphrasing) that content.   IMHO, the basis for that protection gets a little cloudy when they employ an editorial process to determine what stays/doesn't.   

In Twitter's case?   That prompted my question in another thread as to how they selected content for scrutiny, the content sources they use for validation, and the openness of the process.  If they have automated filters that flag content, and the sources against which content is "fact checked" are independent of Twitter, and the process is open?   It would seem that they'd be compliant w/the intent, and still covered by those liability protections.  If they decide for themselves what is/isn't OK based upon their arbitrary interpretation?  That's completely within their purview as a private entity, but I think it would cross the line in terms of the stipulations for liability protection.   I think that the EO has legal holes that someone as statutorily illiterate as I am could drive a truck thru, but, we'll see what the smart guys in robes say.  

 

[slatfatf]

This is a tactic which Trump is known for in his business life. Most subcontractors can be intimidated by threats of lawsuits. Almost no matter how ridiculous those suits may be, the sub knows it's likely they will be, win or lose, stuck with big legal fees. It's like a game of poker when people eyeball the others stacks. Now that Barr is acting as his lawyer...Trump's stack is to the effin' moon.  

True, but time is on Twitter's side. Trump does not have long to run up the bills, and Twitter has the financial ability to wait him out. If they acquiesce, they become less viable in a post Trump world. If they fight, they take some hits now but are stronger on the other side. And if somehow Trump is still in power in 12 months... well no private media company is viable anyway, so might as well fight. Dorsey has nothing to lose by fighting.  

 

[Mark K]

True, but time is on Twitter's side. Trump does not have long to run up the bills, and Twitter has the financial ability to wait him out. If they acquiesce, they become less viable in a post Trump world. If they fight, they take some hits now but are stronger on the other side. And if somehow Trump is still in power in 12 months... well no private media company is viable anyway, so might as well fight. Dorsey has nothing to lose by fighting.  

Twitter has a heck of a lot to consider. They must consider that Barr MAY be there for four and a half more years. They must consider their status if they fold to this BS. They must consider if it's worth it...as merely refraining from putting fact-check tags on Trump's tweets dodges big legal bills.

 If they didn't contemplate all this before acting they demonstrated a serious lack of judgement. Trump reacts in only one way to those who challenge him, and he's a dirty fighter...currently one with enormous resources.  

 

[Bus Driver]

Oh, he moved fast.  And, decisively.

 

[Dog]

Dylan - to your OP title, simply, No.   Being free to say what you want in no way means that you are insulated from hearing what anyone else thinks about what you say. 

That said - the social media platforms have liability protection from content transmitted on their platforms because they don't "constrain, create or control" ( paraphrasing) that content.   IMHO, the basis for that protection gets a little cloudy when they employ an editorial process to determine what stays/doesn't.   

In Twitter's case?   That prompted my question in another thread as to how they selected content for scrutiny, the content sources they use for validation, and the openness of the process.  If they have automated filters that flag content, and the sources against which content is "fact checked" are independent of Twitter, and the process is open?   It would seem that they'd be compliant w/the intent, and still covered by those liability protections.  If they decide for themselves what is/isn't OK based upon their arbitrary interpretation?  That's completely within their purview as a private entity, but I think it would cross the line in terms of the stipulations for liability protection.   I think that the EO has legal holes that someone as statutorily illiterate as I am could drive a truck thru, but, we'll see what the smart guys in robes say.  

Ding!....Ultimately the courts will have to decide the implications of a social media platform getting into the truth business.

 

[jhc]

Ding!....Ultimately the courts will have to decide the implications of a social media platform getting into the truth business.

Ha, ha. That is a joke. The voters will decide in November. Throttling press, and social media will not stand through the election. 

Twitter has made a good bet. Following Trump's own strategy, they have bit the hand that feeds. You know the old saying, the hand you hold, holds you down. 

Now Trump will have to decide, keep posting on twitter, with constant humiliation, or turn to (hold your nose) Facebook.

Trump and Zuk. Dump Pence!

 

[Mark K]

Ding!....Ultimately the courts will have to decide the implications of a social media platform getting into the truth business.

Should a POTUS be in it? 

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Dylan - to your OP title, simply, No.   Being free to say what you want in no way means that you are insulated from hearing what anyone else thinks about what you say. 

That said - the social media platforms have liability protection from content transmitted on their platforms because they don't "constrain, create or control" ( paraphrasing) that content.   IMHO, the basis for that protection gets a little cloudy when they employ an editorial process to determine what stays/doesn't.   

In Twitter's case?   That prompted my question in another thread as to how they selected content for scrutiny, the content sources they use for validation, and the openness of the process.  If they have automated filters that flag content, and the sources against which content is "fact checked" are independent of Twitter, and the process is open?   It would seem that they'd be compliant w/the intent, and still covered by those liability protections.  If they decide for themselves what is/isn't OK based upon their arbitrary interpretation?  That's completely within their purview as a private entity, but I think it would cross the line in terms of the stipulations for liability protection.   I think that the EO has legal holes that someone as statutorily illiterate as I am could drive a truck thru, but, we'll see what the smart guys in robes say.  

How has Twitter constrained, created or controlled content by pointing out that it is bullshit? 

 

[DustyDreamer]

Once in a while Reason puts out something decent:

"And make no mistake: the draft order, when it manages to be coherent, is insanely unconstitutional."

https://reason.com/2020/05/28/trumps-executive-order-on-twitter-is-a-total-mess/

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

How has Twitter constrained, created or controlled content by pointing out that it is bullshit? 

Because the act of labeling it, and hiding it, and restricting comments on it is a constraint.   If there process for selecting and validating prior to labeling/constraining is based upon objective criterion, and the process is open?  Then I think Twitter is still compliant w/the intent of section 230.  If the criterion and review process are subjective and adjudicated internally?  Then their position looks a lot more like editorial commentary, and if I'm not mistaken, that's not what section 230 protections were intended to address.  As others have said, I think they'd have been in a much better position to simply ban the account for a violation of TOS.   

If I'm mistaken - I'm happy to be corrected, but, that's how I see things at the moment. 

 

[Mark K]

Twitter has a heck of a lot to consider. They must consider that Barr MAY be there for four and a half more years. They must consider their status if they fold to this BS. They must consider if it's worth it...as merely refraining from putting fact-check tags on Trump's tweets dodges big legal bills.

 If they didn't contemplate all this before acting they demonstrated a serious lack of judgement. Trump reacts in only one way to those who challenge him, and he's a dirty fighter...currently one with enormous resources.  

Well, that didn't take long to answer. Twitter flagged Trump this morn for "glorifying violence". 

 https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-hides-trump-tweet-for-glorifying-violence-11590743851?mod=djemalertNEWS

Twitter's response to the executive order is an unequivocal "Fuck you".  As Yoda might put it: "On like Donkey Kong, it is."  

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Because the act of labeling it, and hiding it, and restricting comments on it is a constraint.   If there process for selecting and validating prior to labeling/constraining is based upon objective criterion, and the process is open?  Then I think Twitter is still compliant w/the intent of section 230.  If the criterion and review process are subjective and adjudicated internally?  Then their position looks a lot more like editorial commentary, and if I'm not mistaken, that's not what section 230 protections were intended to address.  As others have said, I think they'd have been in a much better position to simply ban the account for a violation of TOS.   

If I'm mistaken - I'm happy to be corrected, but, that's how I see things at the moment. 

He can write whatever he chooses.  He has not been constrained.  People will not be constrained from pointing out that it is bullshit. That will never happen. We used to be more polite about it, even here in PA, but that did not work. So we call bullshit bullshit, and we will never be constrained from doing that, unless we violate the TOS or accuse someone of kiddilly diddilly.  Same with any platform. 

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

 

[Mark K]

He can write whatever he chooses.  He has not been constrained.  People will not be constrained from pointing out that it is bullshit. That will never happen. We used to be more polite about it, even here in PA, but that did not work. So we call bullshit bullshit, and we will never be constrained from doing that, unless we violate the TOS or accuse someone of kiddilly diddilly.  Same with any platform. 

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

 It may be the decided inviting him to leave in this way carries less inherent legal and PR risk. 

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

He can write whatever he chooses.  He has not been constrained.  People will not be constrained from pointing out that it is bullshit. That will never happen. We used to be more polite about it, even here in PA, but that did not work. So we call bullshit bullshit, and we will never be constrained from doing that, unless we violate the TOS or accuse someone of kiddilly diddilly.  Same with any platform. 

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

I think you're missing my point.  Twitter's process for determining what's bullshit and what's not, and their behavior w/r/t that determination is what's at question.   

No one is saying that private individuals can't say what they want, for whatever reasons they want.  Twitter/FB/etc as "social media platforms" have obligations above the individual, if they want to maintain the section 230 protections, don't they?    Those protections insulate them from things that other people say on their platform -  and unless I'm badly mistaken, they don't insulate the social media platforms from things they say/do themselves. 

SO - the act of Twitter in fact censuring a comment, or not censuring a comment, has the potential to put their eligibility for that protection at risk, and as I see it, that determination hinges upon how they select content for scrutiny, and the means by which they validate the content.  

Again - if I'm mistaken in what I'm thinking, I'm open to being squared away. 

 

[jhc]

I don't know why they don't just give him the boot. He needs them a hell of a lot more than they need him. 

Obvious there is a lot more forethought and planning at twitter than the whitehouse. 

Where are "the best people" now?

I don't think booting Trump would serve twitter in the same way that continuing the dialogue will. A good comparison is: What is more effective torture? Waterboarding someone 145 times, or shooting the prisoner in the head?

A metaphor for Trump and the Whitehouse right now: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Guantanamo.

Why put the man on trial when you can hold him indefinitely?

None of these people a "nice". Whoever's motives are clear presently is losing.