Trump Executive Order to 'censor the Internet' denounced as dangerous and unconstitutional

[left-of-center2012]

“In practice, this executive order would mean that whichever political party is in power could dictate what speech is allowed on the Internet.” Civil liberties groups are warning of a major threat to online freedoms and First Amendment rights if a leaked draft of a Trump administration edict—dubbed by critics as a “Censor the Internet” executive order that would give powerful federal agencies far-reaching powers to pick and choose which kind of Internet material is and is not acceptable—is allowed to go into effect.

CNN notes that if put into effect, “the order would reflect a significant escalation by President Trump in his frequent attacks against social media companies over an alleged but unproven systemic bias against conservatives by technology platforms. And it could lead to a significant reinterpretation of a law that, its authors have insisted, was meant to give tech companies broad freedom to handle content as they see fit.”

“It’s hard to put into words how mind bogglingly absurd this executive order is,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, in a tweet. “In the name of defending free speech it would allow mass government censorship of online content. In practice, it means whichever party is in power can decide what speech is allowed on the internet.”

PEN America, which defends the free expression for writers, journalists, and others, warned that any executive order based on this draft rule would be an unconstitutional “anti-American edict.”

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/leaked-draft-of-trump-executive-order-to-censor-the-internet-denounced-as-dangerous-unconstitutional-edict/

[Proud Liberal Dem]

1. The party that repealed and refused to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

now wants their own. What a bunch of whiny hypocrites. Not to mention the fact that conservatives are hardly treated unfairly on social media and if they are getting removed from various platforms at a higher rate (though not really high enough), it's usually correctly justified by their poor conduct while using them (which social media companies. Also, I might add that right-wingers, if anything, have been somewhat successful in driving women, LGBTQ+, POC off of social media by (fraudulently) reporting on them.

[Hortensis]

18. This is a classic fascistic move to control media,

not a RW counterpart to the Fairness Doctrine's attempt to make sure the electorate has exposure to some of the honest news it needs to make responsible decisions.

I agree with you in essence that this is a dangerous move, but darn it, they're not hypocrites, they're hostile revolutionaries deceiving the people into remaining quiet while their nation is taken over, and it would be only the beginning once they got the power they're going for.

[Caliman73]

36. I agree.

I mean, they are hypocrites, but as you said they are much more than just "do as I say not as I do" people. They are authoritarian and have a vision for the country/world that does not entail a "free marketplace of ideas" even as they use the slogan to shame liberals into ceding more and more power. The conservative vision for the nation/world is one where their ideas about who governs is the way and the hierarchy is set with them at the top and all others subservient to their demands. Once they get what they want, they aren't going to stop and say, "Okay, now we can just relax" They will keep working to cement their primacy.

[ancianita]

2. DAMN THIS DICTATORSHIP!

[ancianita]

3. What's he gonna do, send his Stasi out to arrest DU?

Or posters on social media who post words he doesn’t like?

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. see FCC and Net Neutrality

He who controls the pipes controls the content.

Is there profit in censorship? You betcha! Example: tax cuts for the ultra rich.

[ancianita]

16. Okay, so the FCC's been back and forth on it.

On 10 November 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[11][12] On 26 February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service and thus applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to internet service providers.[13] On 14 December 2017, the FCC voted to repeal these net neutrality regulations, particularly by reclassifying broadband providers so that they are not considered common carries under Title II of the Communications Act of 1936.

Grant Babcock, in the libertarian magazine Reason, wrote in 2014 that U.S. government oversight of ISPs could allow government agencies like the NSA to pressure ISPs into handing over private communication data on their users. He noted that there was a history of U.S. governmental abuse of regulation, including the Federal Reserve forcing some banks in 2008 to accept Troubled Asset Relief Program funding by threatening to use their regulatory powers against non-compliant banks.[35]

... make it difficult for Internet Service Providers to legally perform necessary and generally useful packet filtering such as combating denial of service attacks, filtering E-Mail spam, and preventing the spread of computer viruses. Quoting Bram Cohen, the creator of BitTorrent, "I most definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where there's actual censorship...however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop...attacks".[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_law#No_direct_enforcement

This has to be about controlling elections, and keeping MF45 dictator for life. I might be missing something, but the broader goals seem clear.

[Hortensis]

21. Ancianita, they're trying to take over. NO FCC, and yes,

if they succeeded you would become very afraid of what you've posted on DU. Your best defense would be doing nothing that might draw the attention of the authorities to you. And the government would be monitoring everything.

Truthout: Trump isn’t leading the party to fascism — he’s the product of a sustained GOP effort to subvert voting rights and democratic norms. By the time this New York City sideshow authoritarian ran for president, the Republican rank-and-file was well groomed to receive him and the fascism he represented.

[ancianita]

25. I AM. I get it. They not only monitor everything, but the next step is censor dissent by arrest.

Ajit Pai's repeal effectively stripped the FCC of its role in protecting consumers and competition in the broadband market. And the consequences have been dire.

The latest political evil foisted upon CA during its wildfires.

"As a result, a fire department has no recourse when Verizon throttles its broadband, and AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint can sell precise geolocation information for its customers to data brokers who then sell them to bounty hunters without consequence," Sohn said, referring to news last year that Verizon slowed the Santa Clara Fire Department's service to a crawl while first responders were fighting wildfires in California and allegations that major wireless carriers have been selling customer location data.https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-has-been-dead-for-a-year-what-you-need-to-know/

More from C-Net:

California and Washington, that have passed their own laws governing an open internet...the "Restoring Internet Freedom" order, pre-empts states from creating their own regulations. The Justice Department has filed lawsuits against some states, including California. (my emphasis)
...

...Democrats were able to pass a Congressional Review Act resolution in the Senate last year that would've repealed the FCC's order to dismantle the 2015 rules. But it's unlikely any Republicans will defect again to pass this legislation, even if Democrats succeed in getting it to the floor of the Senate.

If it passes both houses of Congress, it still has to be signed into law by Trump. And White House advisors have already said they are advising the president to veto it.

Yet another reason we must retake the Senate in 2020!

[Hortensis]

31. Retake the senate! Yes. 2020 should tell us if

we still have a true democracy or if 2012 was our last real democratic election at the national level.

[ancianita]

34. Yes. I also look to my favorite lawyer, Ari Melber, to explain the legal ramifications of this,

along with Rachel.

[pangaia]

39. but might that already be too late ??

i suspect so

[ancianita]

51. What leaders do, new leaders can undo.

[pangaia]

53. yes, but I mean too late that the upcoming election will mattter..

or even take place in anything resembling an honest fashion...

[ancianita]

55. I trust that Dems teamed with tech's newfound concern are on this.

Of course we the public aren’t going to be informed, since hostile foreign powers are listening.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed that all three vulnerable levels, from voting machine flaws to summary counts passing through servers, to total state count mechanisms, will be kept honest.

You’re right to be concerned about it all being too late. I just hope it’s not, and that further corruption can be prevented.

[pangaia]

56. I'm the pessimist in all this, but I sure hope I am wrong and you are right..

[pangaia]

38. yes

[lark]

4. This is awful.

I just wonder if this would be a step to far for Roberts? I know Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch & Kavanaugh would go along with it, but Roberts occasionally seems half human. Truly, though, I would expect he too would sign off on this unconstitutional law because I don't trust him even a tiny bit and think at heart. he's truly a Russian Repug who doesn't give a damn about us.

[Perseus]

10. This would not happen because it would hurt the bottom line of corporations

This madman has to go.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

50. ex: apple spent $500mil to reap $40bil

GOPers help donors get richer and more powerful. Everyone else are just worker drones or pawns.

[CDerekGo]

5. Again I had to look

Just to be certain this was NOT from the Onion! What the hell is happening to Our Country?

[Initech]

6. Ironic how the people who are the most pro-free speech are the ones looking to destroy it.

[TwilightZone]

14. They're not really pro-speech.

They want to be able to do and say whatever they want, but they don't want the same to apply to others.

Similar to how they want government to stay out of their lives, but not the lives of women, minorities, gays or anyone else not on their approved list.

[Initech]

20. Yeah they want their right to be assholes in public without fear of reprecussion.

It's not being conservative that is getting people banned from social media sites. It's people being hateful dicks and saying mean things and leaving death threats that is getting them banned from social media sites. And there's no such thing as "shadow banning". When I see the right wing organizing "free speech" events I automatically cringe because you know they're planning the exact opposite.

[CrispyQ]

74. Just like representative government was fine,

until the uppity women, people of color, & gays started demanding equality & equity in the system. Now that the white status quo is being challenged & disrupted, a dictatorship doesn't seem so bad to them, just as long as it's their guy who's the dictator.

This more than anything pisses me off about the people I know who still support the republican party. They are okay with taking away the voting rights of people they disagree with. This is gonna leave a mark. I will never look at these people the same.

[nolabear]

8. You cannot imagine how far this could reach.

Education, commerce, creative work, access to jobs, civil rights, practically everything we do or are depends on access to information and to creating information.

Were he to get away with it I would not want to live here any more.

[pangaia]

40. You can very well imagine how far this would reach.

Just pick any authoritarian government one chooses..

China,
Soviet Union
North Korea
Cambodia under Pol Pot...

[nolabear]

42. I have a friend in Tehran.

Those who can afford it get their news from satellite feeds from other countries. Those who can’t have to deal with a state sanctioned view of the world. It’s horrific.

[pangaia]

49. You said it.

I have a couple Persina friends as well-

-one family in SF for whom returning to visit is frought with concern

-Another in Isphahan...

[Perseus]

9. That is communism, and nothing else

It needs to be denounced as COMMUNISM...The POTUS is a communist and a POS.

[ancianita]

17. Nope. It's FASCISM. Don't confuse the two.

[onetexan]

22. +1 K&R

[TheRealNorth]

61. It's autocracy/dictatorial

Reallly has nothing to do with the economic system.

[Chalco]

11. Not surprised, but HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!! nt

[in2herbs]

12. This EO is the distraction for what he has next planned. Like RM says watch what they do not what

they say. What is Russia planning in the coming days?? we can get a clue about what rUmpf will be doing by watching Russia.

[Odoreida]

13. Dangerous and unconstitutional ...

Also impossible to implement.

[pangaia]

41. Dangerous and unconstitutional ...-- so what?

Also impossible to implement.-- why?

I'm on your side but.. read some history--this is how it happens..

[Perseus]

15. And this did not come from his head, this is Putin giving him orders

Putin is the real POTUS today, the marionette who sits in the oval office just responds to the pull of the strings from his master.

Once again, if the republicans really love their country, how much are they compromised? The mafia job that has been done on this is something that Don Corleone would envy.

[ancianita]

19. Yep. This is Putin's model. Putin's puppetry.

[shraby]

23. He can't just wipe out the first amendment regardin freedom of speech

with a stroke of his pen.
The ACLU will be all over his ass like a bunch of ticks.

[triron]

24. That's what they said in Germany 90 years ago.

But hope the courts would immediately invalidate it.

[pangaia]

44. Come on, friend...

Soviet Union
China
North Korea
Cambodia

...
...
...
...

[SummerSnow]

26. yes, it is dangerous ....in the wrong hands. Pot meet kettle

[pangaia]

45. as in Pol Pot....

[yonder]

27. I'd like to say not a chance, but with tRump and any of his like-minded judges, who knows?

Funny how the crowd that's always thumping their chests about the 2A, Freedom and Liberty could get away with this. The other thing, if this EO were successful, how would it square with the conservative argument for Citizens United? Take away the voice of the people but not the voice of corporate America? It's not adding up for me.

[Vinca]

28. That would last about 10 seconds in any court.

[pangaia]

47. in an honest court....

but--------

courts very soon will all be owned by the fascists

[SayItLoud]

29. It's called resist for a reason.

All media companies should just say F U, sue us. Let him take them to court as he forces congress to take those to court who defy legal, constitutional subpoenas.

[Blue_Tires]

30. Greenwald and Snowden were unavailable for comment

Can you imagine the total outrage from both left and right if Obama even suggested censoring the internet??

But of course, it's just another day in Trumpworld and tomorrow it'll be something else.

[calimary]

32. Good Grief - how far can he go?

And/or how far WILL he go?

[bdamomma]

65. He is taking more

away from us, he wants his own Russia, North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, he's a wanna be dick-tator. We must stop him or our life will be severed for a very long time.

Putin must love to see the demise of the US. We cannot be paralyzed. We must not do this

[The Mouth]

33. The only problem some people on either side have with this

is when they don't get to decide what is unacceptable. This kind of shit is why I bitch and grip anytime *ANYONE* wants to censor anything, for any reason.

[Duppers]

73. Even "hate speech"?

I guess so.

Then, how about child porn?
Sorry.


Btw, that's a bit of whataboutism there.

[The Mouth]

75. No censorship

If you outlaw what *YOU* consider "hate speech" then don't complain when they outlaw what they consider 'hate speech'.

so no

*NO SPEECH OR OR OPINIONS* (outside of the normal standard ones of defamation, incitement to riot, and child pornography, all very established legal doctrines) should be censored.

Period. Regardless of content or context. By left or right. Ever. And that includes "hate speech".

[Duppers]

76. Alrighty then.

Btw, defamation is open to interpretation and often pends upon a court decision.

[keithbvadu2]

35. So that same 43% of republicans would approve a democrat shutting down Fox news?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142128590

“Freedom of the press may be guaranteed in the Constitution. But a plurality of Republicans want to give President Trump the authority to close down certain news outlets, according to a new public opinion survey conducted by Ipsos and provided exclusively to The Daily Beast.”

So that same 43% of republicans would approve a democrat shutting down Fox news?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media?via=twitter_page

[pangaia]

37. Gotta say, I've been waiting for this for 2 1'2 years.

What might happen to DU ? I suspect we would be a top priority target.

Or maybe I just think we are too important..

[nolabear]

43. Oh we wouldn't last a minute.

[pangaia]

48. maybe we should all get each other's email address...

[ancianita]

57. Email is THE most surveilled platform.

[pangaia]

58. What about phone numbers? Mine is 1 -800-555-1212. What's yours?

[ancianita]

59. You have an 800 number? Why?

If DU members installed VPN it could prevent finding computer addresses.
(As I understand it)

[pangaia]

62. Um, sarcasm.. my own bit of THE ONION

call the number-- ...

[ancianita]

63. I knew. Just joshin' back.

[pangaia]

64. oh.. I'm the second slowest person on DU..

[nolabear]

69. HEY! Who you callin' slow?

[pangaia]

70. LOL

I KNEW you would say that...

Nah,
its somebody else... I forget who...

[bdamomma]

66. maybe we will be meeting in each other in the streets

Maybe we should exchange addresses. We should try to be in contact with each other.

[pangaia]

68. Well, there ARE 253,000 of us.

[bdamomma]

71. well

let's start exchanging!!

[lpbk2713]

46. It gets more like the Third Reich with each passing day.

And he doesn't even worry about being obvious any more.

[Duppers]

72. +100

[Thomas Hurt]

52. God damned fascist.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. And some folks here I bet will soon be telling us why they simply cant vote for

"fill in the blank" democratic candidate, cuz you know, maybe they gave a speech once.

[SCVDem]

60. If you take the 1st

We will show you the 2nd!

[bdamomma]

67. I like it