Donald Trump signed an executive order which can be read here.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/Here are some sections that detail what the purpose of the order is
Quote
When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
...
Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
...
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). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.
...
When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
A platform cannot be held liable for the content it merely hosts, but didn't create. This is not something that is dependent on the status of the platform as a "publisher", "editor", or as a "provider", so the argument that Twitter becomes a publisher when it censors or moderates with a political bias is irrelevant. This is a simple issue if you think it through. If your status as a "publisher" versus a "host" was important then every news organization would lose it's immunity from liability for things that are posted by other users in its comment section. It doesn't matter if Twitter acts as a totally partisan publisher and censors all conservatives, they will not lose their protection from liability for things other users post. The reason is because section 230 of the CDA specifically says the following
Quote
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(1) says that it doesn't matter if a content host is a publisher, or if they are merely a passive host. They cannot be held legally accountable for any information provided by somebody else and hosted on their platform. Twitter's status as a "publisher" is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not they are afforded protections under CDA section 230. There is no ambiguity. As long as Twitter is not the one who writes the content, unless CDA 230 is repealed, they cannot be held liable. Period.
(2) says that the only factor required for them to have protection from liability for moderation actions is that they find the content objectionable, even if the speech would otherwise be constitutionally protected. There is absolutely no basis for the government to enforce moderation standards on any platform while CDA section 230 is the law, and there is no requirement for moderation standards to be unbiased, politically neutral, or even consistent in their moderation.
tl'dr
CDA 230 explicitly gives Twitter immunity from liability for posts by entities other than Twitter, regardless of political slant and regardless of status as an editor, publisher, or host.
CDA 230 gives Twitter almost total freedom to conduct moderation in any manner they see fit.
For more info see Leonard French, a copyright attorney who breaks down the what and why.
This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 5 2020 10:35pm