Should the Executive Order regarding Social Media be upheld as Constitutional?

2020-05-28T18:54:43-04:00

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-05-28/trump-expected-to-sign-order-on-social-media

trump-expected-to-sign-order-on-social-media

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made May 28 at 2020 6:59 PM

2020-05-28T18:59:29-04:00

NO!
(now I want to see how in the hell the right-wing can support this)

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made May 28 at 2020 7:14 PM

2020-05-28T19:14:23-04:00

No chance in hell. Hate speech was allowed by SOTUS and I do not see this as being any different.

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made May 28 at 2020 7:45 PM

2020-05-28T19:45:04-04:00

The draft order is at https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf and is clearly unconstitutional.

First, the President doesn't get to say what the law is, that is the exclusive providence of the judicial system, see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." at 177). Trying to say that adding a tag is "editing" is not the providence of the Executive Department.

Second, the President doesn't get to overturn or overrule existing statutes. Changing enacted law is the exclusive providence of the legislative system, see Youngstown v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 585 (1952) ("It cannot be contended that the President would have had power to issue this order had Congress explicitly negated such authority in formal legislation." J. Frankfurter, concurring, at 602). Congress has said that the social media providers are exempt from liability, Trump doesn't get to change that by Executive Order.

DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2020 11:52 PM

2020-05-28T23:52:08-04:00

It looks like the draft is just an executive action to the bureaucracies and here some people that it was going to be a unilateral move to write law. Congress gave up their privilege to the executive by creating those bureaucracies. The President's use of the Executive Order is as they were intended.

If the internet providers or social media sites are going to create tools to censor or fact check anyone, the use of tools needs to be uniform and apolitical. Those providers are taking money from political campaigns and censoring or providing access to one political party over another is an "in-kind" donation, free or paid. Ads, regardless of content have a monetary value, every click, every impression, every tech that is employed to create and service that ad puts a dollar value on it.

The president isn't changing anything, he's just directing the bureaucracies to make changes. What happened to the love affair with the bureaucratic state, leftists?

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made May 29 at 2020 1:37 AM

2020-05-29T01:37:27-04:00

I'll point out that the people who want to regulate private property without compensation, who want to tell the owners of Facebook, Twitter, and the like what they can and can't say, are socialists. Yes Cpl Kirk S., that includes you.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2020 4:39 AM

2020-05-29T04:39:11-04:00

EOs only apply to employees of the Executive Branch unless there is a law that has already given the president the authority to do the action in the EO.

Response by PO3 Phyllis Maynard made May 29 at 2020 6:42 AM

2020-05-29T06:42:55-04:00

MAJ Bryan Zeski the read was interesting. I can actually say I don't know enough about the elements in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers to even examine the two sides.

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made May 29 at 2020 8:12 AM

2020-05-29T08:12:12-04:00

I haven't read the proposed EO so I don't know the specifics. However, I will say in my opinion ANY attempt to stifle free speech should be vigorously opposed. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

I may not like the policies of social media platforms but it is their property and they can organize, operate, regulate, etc however they see fit so long as it doesn't violate Constitutional law (I'm mainly thinking civil liberties, discrimination based on sex, ethnicity, etc here). It is my right if I don't like the options available to create my own platform and operate it however I deem appropriate. This is the basic tenet of a free society.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2020 12:40 PM

2020-05-29T12:40:38-04:00

In a word, no.
I do not believe in legislating from the Oval Office any more than I believe in legislating from the judicial bench. That is the province of the Congress.

But allow me to offer a free-market solution. Stand up a new social media platform with whatever rules you want and let people vote with their feet. I think facebook is an endangered species (at least the classic version is) anyway, it just lacks competition. Turn them into myspace, and nobody will care what they fact-check or censor or de-platform.

Response by CW3 Bill Wynne made May 29 at 2020 10:30 PM

2020-05-29T22:30:43-04:00

NO!

Response by CW3 Bill Wynne made May 29 at 2020 10:37 PM

2020-05-29T22:37:27-04:00

SORRY, BUT I JUST DON'T GET IT. I COULD CARE LESS WHAT IS ON TWITTER, OR PINEREST OR FACEBOOK OR HERE. WHAT YOU SAY I CAN LOOK AT AND EITHER THINK IT'S COOL, LIKE HOW TO LOWER YOUR TRUCK, OR STUPID, LIKE BUYING LAKE PROPERTY IN ARIZONA. I HATE THAT YOUR MAKE YOUR DAY SURROUNDING TWITTER OR FB. WHO GIVES A SHIT HOW MANY FOLLOWERS YOU GOT, ALL YOU NEED IS THREE REAL FRIENDS AND NOT TWITTER. ALL I SEE IS VERIFICATION OF HIS INTELLECT BEING VERY, VERY POOR! AND OF COURSE, I'M GLAD I DID NOT HAVE NODULES ON MY ARMS.