It would be a mistake to go straight to the question of whether the policy articulated in the president’s draft executive order, which sets out to limit immunity for social media platforms that restrict access to content, is the right one. 1/6

That debate is important, but Congress has already weighed in and provided broad immunity. It passed a law. Some members want to change that law, but so far, they haven’t been successful in convincing a majority of Congress to go along. 2/6

The president is trying to short-circuit the legislative process and change the law… through executive order. That’s not how it works, folks. And couching it as a request for the FCC to issue “clarifying” regulations doesn’t change what the president’s trying to do here. 3/6

The courts have already clarified what the law means. That’s *their* job in our constitutional system. The president’s job is to faithfully execute the law as interpreted by the courts—which looks nothing like the “clarification” proposed in his executive order. 4/6

Of course, faithfully executing the law isn’t Trump’s jam. He wants to be all three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the courts. That’s the very definition of tyranny, which is why the separation of powers is the bedrock of the Constitution. 5/6

So let’s have a debate over the role of social media platforms in our society and whether Congress got it right. But first, let’s condemn the president’s executive order for what it is: a blatant attempt to bypass Congress and amend legislation by presidential fiat. 6/6