You are on page 1of 6
DELIBERATIVE/PRE-DECISIONAL/PRIVILEGED. EXECUTIVE ORDER PREVENTING ONLINE By the authority vested in ma as Proeident by ion and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Pr: ative Services Act of 1943, a8 amended (40 U.S.C. 101 and 121(a)}, it 1 cllowa? Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of sacred right with the First Amendment express and debate ideas is the foundal Our Founding Fathers protected this ny underscoring that the freedom to ‘The emergence and growth about applying the ideal Today, many Americana fol| their’ views on current evant: those platforms func ars raises important questions modern conmunications technology. ith friends and family, and share iia and other online platforms. As a results jentury equivalent of the public square. As President, to free and open debate on the Internet. Such debate is 5) . in our universities, our businesses, our newspapers, and ourthignes, 1 to sustaining our danocracy, In a country tha fied the freedom of expression, wo cannct allow a ito hand-pick the speech that Ancricans may acceso and janentally un-American and anti-democratic. When larger 'sor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a convey online. This pract powerful social media compa dangerous power. Online platforms, however, are engaging in selective censorship that ia hurting our national digcourse. Tens of thousands of Americana have reported, among other troubling DELIBERATIVE/PRE-DECISIONAL/PRIVILEGED behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, oven though it does not violate any stated terns of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints? and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recour; At the same timo social media platforms are, groundless justifications to censor or otherwia several online platforms are profiting from ari spread by foreign governments Like China. the Chinese Communist Party, which black’ unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, surveillance. Google has alzo established direct benefite to the Chinese milital jd Teitter have accepted advertisononts paid for by the Chil hat sproad false information about China's mass imprisonment of religious - Ypeitter nas also amplified China's Propaganda abroad, including b, fs t officials to use ite platform king inconsistent, irrational, and Auericans' speech here at home, Je aggression and disinformation , created a search engine for “human rights,” hid data termined appropriate for My commitment to tref Therefore, it remains the px From censorship in fernet romaing as strong as ever. States that lawful content should be free ideas. As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse vi inications environment whera all Americans can and should fansparency and accountability trom online platforms, and e @ tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness OF Americar sion of expression. Bee. 2. Protections States to foster clear, the Internet. Prominent and 230(c) of the Communications of the United States that the Restrictions. (a) It is the policy of the United jatory ground rules promoting fre and open debate on rules is the inmunity from liability created by section 'y Act. (soction 230). 47 U.S.C. 230. Tt is the policy S86pe of that immunity should be clarified. DELIBERATIVE?PRE-DICISIONAL/PRIVILEGED Section 230(c) was designed to address court decisions from the early days of the Internet holding that an online platform that engaged in any editing or restriction of content posted by others thereby becane itself a “publisher” of the content and could be Liable for torts like defamation. As the title of secdW 230(c) makes clear, the provision is intended to provide liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (auch av an online platform Like Twitter) t) jages in "*Good Samaritan’ blocking” seme of subsection 230 (c) (2) (AI) cbacene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, once it, harassing, or otherwise objectionable. | Subsection 230(e) (1) broat provider of an interactive computer service shall be treated ss a publ: sontent provided by another person. But subsection 220(c) (2) qualifies the provider edite the content. provided by others. Subpar .se0e protections from “civil Lability” and clarifies that tected from liability when it acts in “good faith” to restrict access to considers to ba “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively viola! ethorwiso objectionable.” Tha provision does not extend to . 2 restricting online content or actions inconsistent with of service. When an interactive computer vervice provider 0 content and its actions do not moot the criteria of subpara is engaged in editorial conduct. By making itself an editor of yctions of subparagraph (c) (2)(A), such a provider forfeits e" under subsection 230(€) (1), which content supplicd bye policy of the United States that all departments and agencies should app’ ding to the interpretation get out in thia section. (b) To further advance joscribed in subsection (a) of this section, within 30 days of the date of this 8 Becrotary of Conmerce (Secretary), through the National Tolecormunications and In Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federa nications Commission (PCC) requesting that the FCC mapeditionsiy propeds reqalsHiMl to Giariey: DELIBERA TIVE/PRE-DECISIONAL PRIVILEGED (4) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of naterial io not “taken in good faith” within the moaning of subparagraph (c) (2) (A) of section 230, particularly the conditions under which such actions will be considered to ber (1) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistentiiwkin a provider's terms of service: or (2) the reault of inadequate notice, st of unreagoned explanation, or having boon undertaking without a unity to be hoard: and (41) Any other proposed regulations des may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsect! See 3. Prohibition on Spending Federa, That Violate Free Speoch Principles. lagency) shall roview ite agancy’s Fo: online platforms. Such review shall ine! supported, the viewpoint-bas Sescaement of whether the of statutory authorities ava each executive department and agency advertising and marketing paid to money spent, the online platforns by each online platform, an Dr auich agoncy’s apcoch, and the dollars to online platforms not ib) Within 30 days, ho head of each agency shall report its nt and Budget. ec. 4. Federal wcoptive Practices. (a) It 1s the policy of the United states that jatforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the functional equivalent bic forum, should not infringe on protected speech. The Supreme Col sribed that social media sites, as the modern public gest powerful mochanisns available to a private citizen to nake his or her voice heard.@ed@iingham v. North Carolina, 137 8. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these chaRfols has become important for meaningful participation in Anorican domocracy, including to patition elected leaders, Thase sites are providing a DELIBERA TIVE/PRE-DECISIONAL/PRIVILEGED public forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cr. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85-89 (1980). (bh) In May of 2019, the White House Office of Digital 54 tool te allow Anericans to report incidents of onlin egy created a Tech Blas Reporting fsorship. In just woeks, the White Strategy shall reestablish the White House ‘Ta ing Teal to collect complaints of online censorship and other potentially acts or practices by online platforms and shall submit complaints receit ‘of duatice and the Federal ‘Trade Commission (FTC). {c) The FTC shall consider taking law, to prohibit unfair or decept ive to 15 U.S.C. 45. Such unfair oF de entities regulated by section 230 that entities public representat. in or affecting commerce, pursuant actice shall include practices by ways that do not align «ith those (2) For large internet social media platform Tilt violations of law that impli for public debate, including the algo consider whether complaints allege forth in section 4(a) of this order. The pts and make the report publicly availble, laptive Practices. (a) The Attorney General shall \ttorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent (b) ‘The White House Office OMMBEgital Strategy shall submit all complaints described in Section 4(b) of this order to the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following: DELIBERATIVE/PRE-DECISIONAL/PRIVILEGED (3) monitoring or creating watch-liste of users bassd on their interactions with content or users (e.g-, likes, follows, time spent); and (4) monitoring users based on their activity offgbhe platform. &, Definition. For purposes of this ord website or application that allows users to cre: networking, or any general search engine 1@ term “online platform” moans any share content or engage in social 4 Sec. 1. General Provision: (a) Nothing in thia order shall be con! (1) the authority grante hoad thereof; (i) the functions of the Di relating to bi (UD existing 1 (b) This order shall bs stent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropaia does not, create any right or benefit,

You might also like