EXECUTIVE ORDERS Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLOGY Issued on May 28 2020 ★ ★ ★ By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America it is hereby ordered as follows Section 1  Policy  Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet   This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic   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 The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology  Today many Americans follow the news stay in touch with friends and family and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms  As a result these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square Twitter Facebook Instagram and YouTube wield immense if not unprecedented power to shape the interpretation of public events to censor delete or disappear information and to control what people see or do not see As President I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities our town halls and our homes  It is essential to sustaining our democracy 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 e ect of disfavoring certain viewpoints and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning no rationale and no recourse Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias   As has been reported Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet   As recently as last week Representative Adam Schi was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax and Twitter did not flag those tweets   Unsurprisingly its o icer in charge of so-called ‘Site Integrity’ has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent irrational and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China  One United States company for example created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights ” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance  It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military  Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities thereby enabling these abuses of human rights   They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad including by allowing Chinese government o icials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong As a Nation we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice  We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression 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   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 Section 230 c was designed to address early court decisions holding that if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation   As the title of section 230 c makes clear the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service such as an online platform that engages in “‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content   In particular the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material   The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse ”  47 U S C 230 a 3   The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind In particular subparagraph c 2 expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene lewd lascivious filthy excessively violent harassing or otherwise objectionable ”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that to the maximum extent permissible under the law this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions o en contrary to their stated terms of service to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree   Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike   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 b   To advance the policy described in subsection  a of this section all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230 c properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard   In addition within 60 days of the date of this order the Secretary of Commerce Secretary in consultation with the Attorney General and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration NTIA shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission FCC requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify i the interaction between subparagraphs c 1 and c 2 of section 230 in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph c 2 A may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph c 1 which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions ii   the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph c 2 A of section 230 particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are A   deceptive pretextual or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service or B   taken a er failing to provide adequate notice reasoned explanation or a meaningful opportunity to be heard and iii   any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection a of this section 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   Such review shall include the amount of money spent the online platforms that receive Federal dollars and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars b  Within 30 days of the date of this order the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the O ice of Management and Budget c  The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection b of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination deception to consumers or other bad practices 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   The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites as the modern public square “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard ”  Packingham v North Carolina 137 S Ct 1730 1737 2017   Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy including to petition elected leaders   These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate   Cf PruneYard Shopping Center v Robins 447 U S 74 85-89 1980 b   In May of 2019 the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship   In just weeks the White House received over 16 000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints   The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission FTC c  The FTC shall consider taking action as appropriate and consistent with applicable law to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or a ecting commerce pursuant to section 45 of title 15 United States Code   Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices d   For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate including the social media platform Twitter the FTC shall also consistent with its legal authority consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4 a of this order   The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available consistent with applicable law 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   The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation as appropriate and consistent with applicable law b Complaints described in section 4 b of this order will be shared with the working group consistent with applicable law The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following i increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow or their interactions with other users ii algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint iii di erential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments iv reliance on third-party entities including contractors media organizations and individuals with indicia of bias to review content and v acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated Sec 6   Legislation   The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order Sec 7  Definition  For purposes of this order the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking or any general search engine Sec 8  General Provisions a   Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise a ect i     the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency or the head thereof or ii    the functions of the Director of the O ice of Management and Budget relating to budgetary administrative or legislative proposals b   This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations c   This order is not intended to and does not create any right or benefit substantive or procedural enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States its departments agencies or entities its o icers employees or agents or any other person