Read on Twitter
The co-author of Section 230, has made one thing clear: there is nothing in the law about political neutrality," tweeted Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who co-sponsored the law.
Trump lied purposely because he interpreted the law how he wanted when he signed #ExecutiveOrder
Trump lied purposely because he interpreted the law how he wanted when he signed #ExecutiveOrder
To the contrary, the explicit goal of Section 230's authors was to free platform owners to make editorial judgments without worrying about the legal ramifications.
The centerpiece of the order is an effort to strip big tech companies of protection under Section 230, a federal law that immunizes websites against liability for user-submitted content. That would be a big deal if Trump actually had the power to rewrite the law. But he doesn't.
Rather, his plan relies on action by the Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency that has shown no inclination to help. Even with FCC help, the most that will happen is a slight reinterpretation of the law—one that the courts might choose to ignore.
Perhaps the most significant change would be redirecting federal ad spending away from big technology platforms. At worst, that would be a modest hit to the bottom lines of technology giants that rake in billions of dollars every quarter.
Section 230 is a federal statute that was duly enacted by Congress. If Trump wanted to change the law, he'd need to convince Congress to pass new legislation, something that's not likely to happen with Democrats controlling the House.
The FCC doesn't work for Donald Trump. The FCC is an independent commission with three Republican commissioners and two Democrats. Of those five commissioners, only one—Republican Brendan Carr—has shown any interest in following Trump's lead.
CNN's Brian Fung reports that the White House didn't consult the FCC before releasing the executive order. Pai hasn't been shy about ignoring Trump suggestions he doesn't agree with. His response to Trump signing the executive order was pointedly non-committal.
Trump's plan is for the Department of Commerce—which does report to Trump—to petition the FCC to reinterpret Section 230. Feld tells Ars that "the petition for the rulemaking process is fairly automatic." A Trump administration request will automatically lead to an FCC
docket and an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the proposal.
Commissioners don't want to act on the petition, they have an easy out: they can just ignore it. "Anyone can file any kind of petition for rulemaking," Feld tells Ars. He says that "90 percent of
Commissioners don't want to act on the petition, they have an easy out: they can just ignore it. "Anyone can file any kind of petition for rulemaking," Feld tells Ars. He says that "90 percent of
the time" the FCC doesn't do anything in response to a petition. So the FCC could easily just ignore a politically inconvenient request.
Even if Trump can get all three Republican FCC commissioners on board, it's not clear how much authority the FCC has here. Agencies like the FCC don't have the power to rewrite statutes, only to clarify them in cases when they are ambiguous.
And agencies tend to get the most deference when they are interpreting statutes they're in charge of enforcing. That doesn't describe Section 230, which is enforced directly by the courts.
The right to free speech lives on the Internet. But there is no right to lie, defraud or commit crimes on the Internet.
