This has to be a joke. Did a 9-year-old come up this concept? Under Section 230, Twitter can take "any action" to "restrict access" to information it finds "objectionable." https://twitter.com/Klonick/status/1265850207297732608

Packingham relates to a LAW that banned people from social media -- not a corporate policy

Pruneyard said the state could prevent shopping malls from banning "expressive activity," but not if it disrupted the mall's business & it wasn't a 1A violation https://twitter.com/Klonick/status/1265850208212172806

Citizens United also undercuts these arguments because it protects Facebook's right to free speech, which includes deleting or saying anything it wants. Deleting speech is also free speech.

Facebook gave the GOP $466,000 this year (speech again)

(disclaimer: IANAL)

The only way for this to work is for Republicans to revoke Section 230, which would shut down nine out of the 10 most popular websites in the world & crash the internet economy. Oh, and repeal Citizens United and/or rewrite the First Amendment.

Good luck!!!

seriously, no reporter should be covering this without talking to a legitimate 1A attorney. If you're lending credence to this, you're doing your one job wrong. You should also talk to @jkosseff and/or @ericgoldman (i say both) or someone they recommend

it looks like they cite packingham and pruneyard just to emphasize how big and important social media has become (even though pruneyard pre-dates the internet), and then they sandwiched an impromptu line in between about people being able to petition lawmakers on twitter lol

All Twitter has to do is get a third-party to write the fact-checking labels it adds to Trump's tweets & this entire EO is instantly invalid

AOL was sued for editing a stock quote once and was protected by 230 b/c the info originated with a third-party: https://eff.org/files/ben-ezra-v-aol.pdf

I think they underestimate the phrase "otherwise objectionable." Trump's inaccurate tweets seem objectionable? Particularly on voting/health issues? They arguably impact the public co's reputation. Jack has even been hauled in front of Congress over the spread of disinformation

Guess I could have stopped at the first tweet. This is bad and whoever wrote it should feel bad/be demoted

Also, the White House is trying to make its case using a decision (Packingham) about the constitutional right of pedophiles to use online platforms that allow children, in case literally every reporter writing about this tomorrow wants to mention that

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

The source of those screenshots (h/t @BradMossEsq)

https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1265872941624856576?s=21 https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1265872941624856576