Advertisement
U.S. markets open in 4 hours 2 minutes
  • S&P Futures

    5,209.50
    -5.25 (-0.10%)
     
  • Dow Futures

    39,194.00
    -29.00 (-0.07%)
     
  • Nasdaq Futures

    18,209.50
    -22.00 (-0.12%)
     
  • Russell 2000 Futures

    2,043.50
    -6.30 (-0.31%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    82.39
    -0.33 (-0.40%)
     
  • Gold

    2,156.00
    -8.30 (-0.38%)
     
  • Silver

    25.10
    -0.16 (-0.63%)
     
  • EUR/USD

    1.0847
    -0.0029 (-0.27%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    4.3400
    0.0000 (0.00%)
     
  • Vix

    14.51
    +0.18 (+1.26%)
     
  • GBP/USD

    1.2681
    -0.0048 (-0.38%)
     
  • USD/JPY

    150.5750
    +1.4770 (+0.99%)
     
  • Bitcoin USD

    63,664.98
    -4,506.55 (-6.61%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    885.54
    0.00 (0.00%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    7,716.80
    -5.75 (-0.07%)
     
  • Nikkei 225

    40,003.60
    +263.20 (+0.66%)
     

Section 230 explained after Trump calls to 'revoke' it

Yahoo Finance’s Alexis Keenan joins Akiko Fujita to break down Section 230, the internet free speech law Trump wants to change.

Video Transcript

AKIKO FUJITA: And I want to bring in Alexis Keenan because we want to talk about the legal implications of all of this. Alexis, you, know, we've talked about before in terms of cracking down on social media companies, section 230-- that has really been the focus of many law makers previously-- those like Josh Hawley, who have said that needs to be revoked. How is the executive order that President Trump signed different in terms of how it goes after social media companies?

ALEXIS KEENAN: Yeah, Akiko, we saw today, also, President Trump calling for revoking section 230 that you're talking about altogether. That's part of the Communications. Decency Act that was adopted in 1996. And basically what it does-- the whole purpose of its inaction was to let online platforms-- like Google, like Facebook, like Twitter-- let them restrict user content to a certain extent without the fear of liability, primarily for defamation type lawsuits.

Now you have to think about blocking, that is things like, obscene, lewd, violent, harassing type nature content blocking. But the blocking that they are all allowed to do, it comes with a catch. Any restriction of the content, it has to be done in good faith. And that is exactly the language, because it's ambiguous in the statute as it's been written. It has been interpreted by courts across the country.

This executive order that Trump has signed is going after that language, trying to redefine, giving the FCC authority to really redefine what good faith is, or what bad faith is if you want to look at it that way. So really expanding the idea of what bad faith might be. And Trump calls for re-examination by the FCC to look at content blocking that it considers to be biased and to take that, and that way, the more action any online platform might take to block content, the more opportunity that they would open themselves up to this liability that they've been protected from since that section of the act has been adopted.

So in terms of trying to get this to be effective and effect these technology companies, these online platforms-- you know, until these agencies that are called upon in the order to do something about it, to do this reinterpretation, nothing really happens. It lays dormant until there's a challenge. And certainly, there are a lot of different parties that could challenge it. But right now, until they do something and actually cause a party harm, there's little to be done, really, at this point about it.

AKIKO FUJITA: Yeah, you know, Alexis, we were talking about this with Dan Hellie yesterday, who said essentially, look, you can expect these tech companies to be drawing up a lawsuit right now. If, in fact, it moves forward, as the president says, we don't know that yet. But I'm wondering is this something that you expect to play out in the courts? And if so, how do the legal arguments hold?

ALEXIS KEENAN: Yeah, so the legal arguments don't look good here. You know, Twitter itself has a right, as do the other online platforms-- they have their own first amendment right to free speech. And, really, what this executive order tries to do is it tries to take away that right for them to respond to something that they want to respond to on their private platforms.

Now a lot of argument that it's a public platform, that it's a public square-- that's one of the things, the thrust of this executive order that it tries to implement. But look, not really likely to stand legal muster wherever the challenge comes from, whether it's the online social platforms themselves, whether it's a private party that says they've been harmed. Not looking good because any attempt by a government to limit speech is going to come under just a mountain of case law and very clear first amendment policy on this issue-- not going to pass legal muster, most likely.

AKIKO FUJITA: OK, Alexis walking us through the legal hurdles this is likely to face. Appreciate you joining us today.

Advertisement