Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c).
Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency's Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.
Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech.
Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.
Utterly unconstitutional and based on unconstitutional and invalid federal law, all of which has no constitutional authority Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the feds to regulate private individual or private company behavior, ESPECIALLY speech.Instead of curtailing the already massively unconstitutional federal government and acts, Trump is unwittingly expanding such unconstitutional power of the feds into an even greater totalitarian power.
This is not the road to making America great again. This is the road to destroying America and the road to ruin.
If they have a privileged exemption from libel and slander on the grounds that they are a neutral platform, then failure to remain neutral strips them of that exemption. And the federal government won’t send them any ad business. Nothing unconstitutional about any of that.
>> feds to regulate private individual or private company
Thought both Twitter & FB were publicly held entities that trade on the federally regulated stock exchange?
Utterly unconstitutional and based on unconstitutional and invalid federal law, all of which has no constitutional authority Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the feds to regulate private individual or private company behavior, ESPECIALLY speech.
No hardly. Ask At&t and Microsoft. Once they become more than a company and become a utility that
1. Violates the 1st Amendment of a political group
2. Interjects themselves into elections
3. Side with foreign enemies like China
to me, this is rather tame. Personally they should be classified as domestic enemies just due to their relationship with China who is going to go out og their way to influence iur elections.