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 troublingDELIBERATIVE/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 aDELIBERA 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,