Trump's 'Protecting Americans from Online Censorship' order would end social platform protections in CDA Section 230

Originally published at:

Banning Nazis from Twitter should be against the law: Trump, basically.


This will go… poorly.


my gosh, anything to hold on to that last sliver of power

if it’s not obvious, he’s setting it up so russia can place content without getting it removed or the accounts shutdown

doesn’t north korea have its own hacking team? I wonder which side they will take, though they might not have the budget to buy facebook ads


Wait how would that work? The CDA is a law. You can’t write an executive order overturning a law.

The cases would be immediately and unceremoniously thrown out of court if the FTC/FCC tried bringing them, and we already know Donnie’s admin won’t join cases that run counter to their politics.


God I cant wait for this tool to leave office so I can get right to ignoring his obnoxious existence for the rest of my life

Until The Shittening.


Remember when the “fairness doctrine” was a sinister liberal plot against talk radio?

Apparently they don’t.


One gets the distinct impression that El Presidente has a gut-level feeling about the nature of executive power that, if actually developed into an articulate theory of executive power(which seems unlikely to have happened) would make John Yoo blush.


it’s not about what’s legal, it’s about what you can get other people to do.

separating kids from their parents, holding them for weeks or months, failing to provide adequate care, food, and water to detained people, deporting people without giving them due process… none of it’s legal: but what does it matter when you have a department like ice to do what you ask.

this’ll be the same. legality doesn’t matter. fear and control matter


It’s nice to imagine a scenario wherein Facebook gets broken up and various reprehensible views held by 12.5% of the population get walled off – but it probably wouldn’t be that simple.


Wait. Does this mean that Americans will be able to sue American companies in American courts when said American companies censor American commenters when they follow foreign laws?


This is by the same administration which fought for the right to block Twitter users from Trump’s official Twitter account based on their viewpoints. :-/


Of course, there will be an exception for Israel-related speech.

So, that means that barely disguised online harassing and doxxing would be protected by the law?

That can backfire greatly for Agent Orange President and any of his nazi supporters.


From our (French) corrupt lot, let me introduce the “Law for a sporty France”, which has a number of articles, several to help with the practice of sports to benefit people’s health.
Until you reach article 18, which is slightly different. It proposes adjustments to the Evin law, which regulates alcohol sales and publicity, to allow sales of alcohol during the big football/soccer matches. Those known for “unruly” supporters. aka violent hooligans.
On the grounds that “small clubs are allowed to sell alcohol, and you can get some in VIP rooms during big events, so it’s unfair and we want to make it fair.”

Quite a few people are wondering why a law about sports and health should not instead concern itself with banning the sale of alcohol. Got to love the lobbies and their puppets…

Not if Trump is in control of the courts. And that is exactly what he is doing. And this power will last much longer than his “presidency”. (Sorry for linking to this video a second time, but I think this info is currently not getting the attention it deserves.)


Spectator sports are spectacles, not sport. They are a business, there to sell ads, beer, grub, like cinemas having become places where you gorge on snacks and soft drinks.

1 Like

I love me some Vox, but every once in a while they post some crazy, crazy stuff. So I’m sorry to disagree with you but yeah, it kinda has received the attention it deserves.

Judges have politics, but it tends to be very different from the politics that currently reigns in the Legislative or Executive branches.

I remember a little while ago there was a case about whether you could charge someone in state court for something that had previously been charged in federal court. Partisans were convinced that the fix was in and that they would throw that doctrine out so that they could keep Donnie out of jail for state crimes. In the end, 4 of the 5 conservative justices voted to keep the status quo–including Kavanaugh.

Yes, Mitch’s court packing is a problem, and a serious one. But the problem primarily exists at the district court level, and appellate courts aren’t likely to rule that EOs have unlimited power to overturn laws… ever, really. Those judges know they’re in for life and that Donnie won’t be in for much longer (even assuming they support Donnie having a coup d’etat, he’s not likely to live too much longer), and they probably won’t like the next president’s EOs.


It will make corporations move more slowly to remove this type of content- and those court cases will be delayed.

He’ll probably sign it after the primary ends.


That’s what I thought at first, but the EO only applies to companies with a user base of 1/8 of the US population. Tech companies that size have legal departments large enough to tie these cases up in court and not give a flip about what the law actually says.

Edit: That’s normally a bad thing, but in this case it will work in favor of free speech