Update, 7:07 p.m. ET, January 6, 2021 – Twitter has deleted both of the Tweets identified in the story below. They also deleted a third Tweet, sent soon after 6 p.m. ET, which read: “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
In a Tweet explaining their reasoning, the social medial platform wrote:
This means that the account of @realDonaldTrump will be locked for 12 hours following the removal of these Tweets. If the Tweets are not removed, the account will remain locked.
— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) January 7, 2021
Trump Used Twitter to Continue to Incite Violent Capitol Breaches. How Will the Website React?
January 6, 2021 — As a mob of several thousand supporters for Donald Trump stormed the Capitol, delaying congressional count of the electoral votes certifying the presidential election of Joe Biden, social media giant Twitter faced increased pressure to restrict or delete the account of the president.
Trump, who incited protestors to storm the Capitol in a speech earlier on Wednesday, issued a number of Tweets following his speech, including two of which Twitter restricted users from liking, replying to, or Retweeting “due to a risk of violence.”
The first of these tweets – blasting Vice President Mike Pence – came at 2:24 p.m.
Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2021
The second of these was his three-minute video sent at 4:17 p.m., after Biden spoke to the nation and urged Trump to call on his supporters to leave the Capitol.
Trump’s video repeated his false claims of election fraud, but nonetheless encouraging the protestors to leave the Capitol. Twitter also restricted the Tweet “due to a risk of violence.”
Speaking to a mob of supporters and encouraging them to storm of Capitol
Several thousand protesters cheered on Trump and his baseless claims of election fraud at the “Save America Rally” near the White House on Wednesday morning ahead of Congress’ joint vote to count the 2020 presidential electoral votes.
“We will not let them silence your voices,” Trump told the protesters, who had lined up before sunrise to get a prime position to hear the president speak.
Escalating violence on Capitol Hill
Since this morning’s rally, the situation in Washington escalated dramatically. Directed by the president, the pro-Trump protesters marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and in fact storm the halls of Congress.
Protesters breached the Capitol building and quickly surrounded the House and Senate chambers. Many reporters recounted the melee and the violence, including tear gas, guns drawn and police officers barricading the door with guns drawn.
Members of the House were evacuated from the floor. The House and the Senate have both recessed as of publication.
Trump used Twitter to rally his supporters, previously and today
“See you in D.C.” the president Tweeted the morning of January 5, calling Trump supporters to the Capitol to oppose the certification of the election results.
After encouraging his supporters to march to Congress amid the electoral vote certification, the President sent the tweet criticizing Pence. The full tweet read, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
Trump followed with a tepid tweet at 2:38 p.m. encouraging people to “stay peaceful” and another at 3:13 p.m. saying that he was “asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence.”
Should Trump’s Twitter be shut down for incitement?
Many users of Twitter have begun calling for the platform to cut the outgoing president’s conspiracy-fueled pipeline for violating the platform’s content rules by inciting violence and racial agitation and spreading misinformation.
Twitter has committed to more stringent rules against peddling misinformation this year, like labeling false information as disputed.
Since the election, Twitter has repeatedly put that label on Trump’s Tweets. But unlike normal platform abusers, the company has refused to banish Trump outright because, because of their world leaders policy.
“If a Tweet from a world leader does violate the Twitter Rules but there is a clear public interest value to keeping the Tweet on the service, we may place it behind a notice,” reads the policy.
Twitter’s world leaders policy was codified last year and treats some rule-breaking tweets as newsworthy. But that designation will no longer protect Trump once he is a former president.
After Biden’s inauguration, when Trump is no longer deemed a ”world leader” and likely continues to break Twitter’s Terms of Service rules, the company may well give its most notorious user the permanent boot.
Panel Hears Opposing Views on Content Moderation Debate
Some agreed there is egregious information that should be downranked on search platforms.
WASHINGTON, September 14, 2022 – Panelists wrangled over how technology platforms should handle content moderation at an event hosted by the Lincoln Network Friday, with one arguing that search engines should neutralize misinformation that cause direct, “tangible” harms and another advocating an online content moderation standard that doesn’t discriminate on viewpoints.
Debate about what to do with certain content on technology platforms has picked up steam since former President Donald Trump was removed last year from platforms including Facebook and Twitter for allegedly inciting the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol.
Search engines generally moderate content algorithmically, prioritizing certain results over others. Most engines, like Google, prioritize results from institutions generally considered to be credible, such as universities and government agencies.
That can be a good thing, said Renee DiResta, research manager at Stanford Internet Observatory. If search engines allow scams or medical misinformation to headline search results, she argued, “tangible” material or physical harms will result.
The internet pioneered communications from “one-to-many” broadcast media – e.g., television and radio – to a “many-to-many” model, said DiResta. She argued that “many-to-many” interactions create social frictions and make possible the formation of social media mobs.
At the beginning of the year, Georgia Republic representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was permanently removed from Twitter for allegedly spreading Covid-19 misinformation, the same reason Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was removed from Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube.
Lincoln Network senior fellow Antonio Martinez endorsed a more permissive content moderation strategy that – excluding content that incites imminent, lawless action – is tolerant of heterodox speech. “To think that we can epistemologically or even technically go in and establish capital-T Truth at scale is impossible,” he said.
Trump has said to be committed to a platform of open speech with the creation of his social media website Truth Social. Other platforms, such as social media site Parler and video-sharing website Rumble, have purported to allow more speech than the incumbents. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk previously committed to buying Twitter because of its policies prohibiting certain speech, though he now wants out of that commitment.
Alex Feerst, CEO of digital content curator Murmuration Labs, said that free-speech aphorisms – such as, “The cure for bad speech is more speech” – may no longer hold true given the volume of speech enabled by the internet.
Experts Reflect on Supreme Court Decision to Block Texas Social Media Bill
Observers on a Broadband Breakfast panel offered differing perspectives on the high court’s decision.
WASHINGTON, June 2, 2022 – Experts hosted by Broadband Breakfast Wednesday were split on what to make of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to reverse a lower court order lifting a ban on a Texas social media law that would have made it illegal for certain large platforms to crack down on speech they deem reprehensible.
The decision keeps the law from taking affect until a full determination is made by a lower court.
During a Broadband Live Online event on Wednesday, Ari Cohn, free speech counsel for tech lobbyist TechFreedom, argued that the bill “undermines the First Amendment to protect the values of free speech.
“We have seen time and again over the course of history that when you give the government power to start encroaching on editorial decisions [it will] never go away, it will only grow stronger,” he cautioned. “It will inevitably be abused by whoever is in power.”
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights for advocate Free Press, agreed with Cohn. “This is a state effort to control what private entities do,” she said Wednesday. “That is unconstitutional.
“When government attempts to invade into private action that is deeply problematic,” Benavidez continued. “We can see hundreds and hundreds of years of examples of where various countries have inserted themselves into private actions – that leads to authoritarianism, that leads to censorship.”
Principal at McCollough Law Firm Scott McCollough said Wednesday that he believed the law should have been allowed to stand.
“I agree the government should not be picking and choosing who gets to speak and who does not,” he said. “The intent behind the Texas statute was to prevent anyone from being censored – regardless of viewpoint, no matter what [the viewpoint] is.”
McCollough argued that this case was about which free speech values supersede the other – “those of the platforms, or those of the people who feel that they are being shut out from what is today the public square.
“In the end it will be a court that acts, and the court is also the state,” McCollough added. “So, in that respect, the state would still be weighing in on who wins and who loses – who gets to speak and who does not.”
Chief policy officer of social media platform Parler Amy Peikoff said Wednesday that her primary concern was “viewpoint discrimination in favor of the ruling elite.”
Peikoff was particularly concerned about coordination between state agencies and social media platforms to “squelch certain viewpoints.”
Peikoff clarified that she did not believe that the Texas law was the best vehicle to address these concerns, however, stating instead that lawsuits – preferably private ones – be used to remove the “censorious cancer,” rather than entangling a government entity in the matter.
“This cancer grows out of a partnership between government and social media to squelch discussion about certain viewpoints and perspectives.”
Wednesday, June 1, 2022, 12 Noon ET – BREAKING NEWS EVENT! – The Supreme Court, Social Media and the Culture Wars
The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a Texas law that would ban large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express. Join us for this breaking news event of Broadband Breakfast Live Online in which we discuss the Supreme Court, social media and the culture wars.
- Scott McCollough, Attorney, McCollough Law Firm
- Amy Peikoff, Chief Policy Officer, Parler
- Ari Cohn, Free Speech Counsel, TechFreedom
- Nora Benavidez, Senior Counsel and Director of Digital Justice and Civil Rights at Free Press
- Drew Clark (presenter and host), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast
- Supreme Court decision on HB 20, May 31, 2022
- Narrow Majority of Supreme Court Blocks Texas Law Regulating Social Media Platforms, Broadband Breakfast, May 31, 2022
- Explainer: With Florida Social Media Law, Section 230 Now Positioned In Legal Spotlight, Broadband Breakfast, May 25, 2021
- Parler Policy Exec Hopes ‘Sustainable’ Free Speech Change on Twitter if Musk Buys Platform, Broadband Breakfast, May 16, 2022
- Experts Warn Against Total Repeal of Section 230, Broadband Breakfast, November 22, 2021
- Broadband Breakfast Hosts Section 230 Debate, Broadband Breakfast, June 1, 2021
W. Scott McCollough has practiced communications and Internet law for 38 years, with a specialization in regulatory issues confronting the industry. Clients include competitive communications companies, Internet service and application providers, public interest organizations and consumers.
Amy Peikoff is the Chief Policy Officer of Parler. After completing her Ph.D., she taught at universities (University of Texas, Austin, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, United States Air Force Academy) and law schools (Chapman, Southwestern), publishing frequently cited academic articles on privacy law, as well as op-eds in leading newspapers across the country on a range of issues. Just prior to joining Parler, she founded and was President of the Center for the Legalization of Privacy, which submitted an amicus brief in United States v. Facebook in 2019.
Ari Cohn is Free Speech Counsel at TechFreedom. A nationally recognized expert in First Amendment law, he was previously the Director of the Individual Rights Defense Program at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and has worked in private practice at Mayer Brown LLP and as a solo practitioner, and was an attorney with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Ari graduated cum laude from Cornell Law School, and earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Nora Benavidez manages Free Press’s efforts around platform and media accountability to defend against digital threats to democracy. She previously served as the director of PEN America’s U.S. Free Expression Programs, where she guided the organization’s national advocacy agenda on First Amendment and free-expression issues, including press freedom, disinformation defense and protest rights. Nora launched and led PEN America’s media-literacy and disinformation-defense program. She also led the organization’s groundbreaking First Amendment lawsuit, PEN America v. Donald Trump, to hold the former president accountable for his retaliation against and censorship of journalists he disliked.
Drew Clark is the Editor and Publisher of BroadbandBreakfast.com and a nationally-respected telecommunications attorney. Drew brings experts and practitioners together to advance the benefits provided by broadband. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he served as head of a State Broadband Initiative, the Partnership for a Connected Illinois. He is also the President of the Rural Telecommunications Congress.
As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.
Narrow Majority of Supreme Court Blocks Texas Law Regulating Social Media Platforms
The decision resulted in an unusual court split. Justice Kagan sided with Justice Alito but refused to sign his dissent.
WASHINGTON, May 31, 2022 – On a narrow 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court of the United States on Tuesday blocked a Texas law that Republicans had argued would address the “censorship” of conservative voices on social media platforms.
Texas H.B. 20 was written by Texas Republicans to combat perceived bias against conservative viewpoints voiced on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms with at least 50 million active monthly users.
The bill was drafted at least in part as a reaction to President Donald Trump’s ban from social media. Immediately following the January 6 riots at the United States Capitol, Trump was simultaneously banned on several platforms and online retailers, including Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and myriad other websites.
See also Explainer: With Florida Social Media Law, Section 230 Now Positioned In Legal Spotlight, Broadband Breakfast, May 25, 2021
Close decision on First Amendment principles
A brief six-page dissent on the matter was released on Tuesday. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the law should have been allowed to stand. Justice Elena Kagan also agreed that the law should be allowed to stand, though she did not join Alito’s penned dissent and did not elaborate further.
The decision was on an emergency action to vacate a one-sentence decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court had reversed a prior stay by a federal district court. In other words, the, the law passed by the Texas legislature and signed by Gov. Greg Abbott is precluded from going into effect.
Tech lobbying group NetChoice – in addition to many entities in Silicon Valley – argued that the law would prevent social media platforms from moderating and addressing hateful and potentially inflammatory content.
In a statement, Computer & Communications Industry Association President Matt Schruers said, “We are encouraged that this attack on First Amendment rights has been halted until a court can fully evaluate the repercussions of Texas’s ill-conceived statute.”
“This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas’s social media law.”
In a statement, Public Knowledge Legal Director John Bergmayer said, “It is good that the Supreme Court blocked HB 20, the Texas online speech regulation law. But it should have been unanimous. It is alarming that so many policymakers, and even Supreme Court justices, are willing to throw out basic principles of free speech to try to control the power of Big Tech for their own purposes, instead of trying to limit that power through antitrust and other competition policies. Reining in the power of tech giants does not require abandoning the First Amendment.”
In his dissent, Alito pointed out that the plaintiffs argued “HB 20 interferes with their exercise of ‘editorial discretion,’ and they maintain that this interference violates their right ‘not to disseminate speech generated by others.’”
“Under some circumstances, we have recognized the right of organizations to refuse to host the speech of others,” he said, referencing Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc.
“But we have rejected such claims in other circumstances,” he continued, pointing to PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins.
Will Section 230 be revamped on a full hearing by the Supreme Court?
“It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies, but Texas argues that its law is permissible under our case law,” Alito said.
Alito argued that there is a distinction between compelling a platform to host a message and refraining from discriminating against a user’s speech “on the basis of viewpoint.” He said that H.B. 20 adopted the latter approach.
Alito went on, arguing that the bill only applied to “platforms that hold themselves out as ‘open to the public,’” and “neutral forums for the speech of others,” and thus, the targeting platforms are not spreading messages they endorse.
Alito added that because the bill only targets platforms with more than 50 million users, it only targets entities with “some measure of common carrier-like market power and that this power gives them an ‘opportunity to shut out [disfavored] speakers.’”
Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonya Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all voted affirmatively – siding with NetChoice LLC’s emergency application – to block H.B. 20 from being enforced.
- Tech Against Texas Social Media, Alabama Middle Mile Grant, IP3 Awards Bestowed
- State Broadband Maps Show Significantly Fewer Served Locations than Does FCC’s Map
- As LEO Industry Grows, FCC Adopts Rule to Limit Space Debris
- Shielding Broadband Grants from Taxes, American at ITU, Google Fiber Multi-Gig Speeds
- Public–Private Partnership Model ‘Most Effective Way’ to Address Digital Divide: AT&T Rep
- In Video Session, Christopher Mitchell Digs Into Community Ownership and Open Access Networks
Signup for Broadband Breakfast
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
AT&T Sues T-Mobile Over Ad, Nokia Partners with Ready, LightPath Expanding
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
Promoting Affordable Connectivity Program, Google Bars Truth Social, T-Mobile Wins 2.5 GHz Auction
Broadband Mapping & Data2 weeks ago
Broadband Mapping Masterclass on September 27, 2022
Broadband Mapping & Data3 weeks ago
FCC’s Fabric Challenge Process Important Part of Getting Map Right, Agency Says
WISP3 weeks ago
Wisper Internet CEO Takes Issue With Federal Government Preference for Fiber
Big Tech3 weeks ago
A White House Event, Biden Administration Seeks Regulation of Big Tech
Funding3 weeks ago
NTIA Middle Mile Director Stresses Need for Infrastructure to Withstand Climate Events
Fiber4 weeks ago
In ‘Office Hours’ Sessions, NTIA Addresses Questions of Middle Mile Grant Applicants