About Freedom of Expression
Anyone following my columns through the years knows that I am a fanatic for the First Amendment to the Constitution, the one guarantying Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Expression. Having been involved in the media since the mid-70s, I treasure them as the most valuable benefit we can have. I have defended our right to speak the truth on television, on the radio, with the newspaper and I have been battling the prohibition imposed on us by Lawrence Community Access Television for the past 15 years.
Last week, something happened with Twitter and President Trump that has been in the news, terribly distorted and misunderstood. I don’t like talking about national politics because local issues keep me busy enough but this explanation is to clarify something most people know nothing about. So, keep in mind that this is an explanation of what it all means for all Americans.
In the Communications Decency Act of 1966 of the Federal Communications Commission, Section 230 gives the media wide latitude in moderating content but they must respect the freedom of speech. Through the years, all media venues were protected from lawsuits thanks to Section 230 as long as they remained neutral. They were under the threat that curbing free speech could lead federal agencies to remove those protections.
Fifty years later, the internet has exploded with social media that is covered by the same rules and protections and they have not kept up with modern technologies. We hear comments about things, news, stories that later result on being highly exaggerated or not true at all and we wonder how some people are “allowed” to say those things. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.
You may argue online with that individual, corroborate or clarify what’s being said because that’s also your right, but social media administrators cannot alter, delete or “fact-check” a posting from anyone.
Comes President Trump; he wrote on Twitter the following message:
“We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen.”
Next, Twitter made a notation under his comment clarifying it and the President thought they had no right to do that.
President Trump has been complaining that the tech giants are targeting conservatives on social media by fact-checking them or removing their posts. If Google, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or any social media platform stop remaining neutral interfering with the public’s opinions and infringing upon our Constitutional rights, should they continue to enjoy liability protections as “platforms” under federal law or be treated more like publishers, which can face lawsuits over content?
The President immediately went to work on an Executive Order accusing the social media platforms of “selective censoring” to remove legal protections for those companies under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if they violate any of the provisions for which they were granted in the first place. If these protections are removed, social media will have the liberty to edit, delete or censure at their hearts’ content for fear of a lawsuit.
The reason why I started writing about this is because the President’s tweet was distorted. He didn’t say he was going to close Twitter; he explained that he doesn’t have the power to do it, but we should never allow this to happen. I know that he must watch what he says carefully because the media got hung up on the closing of Twitter part. Frankly, what good is the internet if what we find is edited at will and cannot be trusted?
The First Amendment of the Constitution is one reason most people come to this country. It’s our responsibility to analyze what we read instead of placing our trust on a radio or television personality because they are human and have their own prejudices. Perhaps their minds are made up before reading and cannot comprehend what’s being said.
