New Documents Executive Order D 2020 110 is amended as follows: 1. New Documents 604 publication in the future. 2. 1r�F����B�-c���~wg���kw�BD�Ӆ���!�9Dti Q��9\^�덻N:���|�o�IL��2��i�+�pjM.����*!�ڸi���_S�%�J�d���v)F@?QN���z>��U�k�U�Jq��P�n��/0J)�RM��")伂 �f3i1Ρ��3���iL�R�fm��0V�?6�.�vTw偱\"���K�\l�19��g��dl�R5t߰��g'���y�����;��N}�'o��K~�4U�~]�f��9��e����:ѶrÅ��?k�㾯;��`aL����|2�V5�'v���-�ID����}������S9�W�wQ��f���i�sD��{�k L1{� �W���q�q Executive Order No.
documents in the last year /XIPLAYER_CM9 17 0 R July 9, 2020. << /ProcSet [/PDF /Text /ImageB /ImageC /ImageI]
Documents 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. Federal Register. (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. Executive Order 13941 In this Issue These 55 executive orders can be downloaded in CSV/Excel and JSON formats. The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable h�bbd``b`Z$�C�k$X����@�Հ����H��+�q�o� � 55 documents in the last year Download. Documents 2 0 obj In this Issue ��3X �tGC�U�n�R�ì~�6����NбC4{Nv�R����������"�8�1��ݛ�{���j�ܴUS�"�z�BY7��^+h�D\7����2�Z��qV�N�61즄 �������3� �e�.���ѿp_A�EO����n�{1�G)���ًb]�m�;J��'���d8%�m�O���.����0����خf[�iP ql���v�ywT��] t_��˳�'{t�!�� HʏH����n"�GN�w?zq��ǁ��=u�ى�2���R+�ĉ��co /Filter /FlateDecode 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 (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.
82 2. We drafted and implemented guidelines and requirements for appropriate social distancing, hygiene, and public health best practices. 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. EXECUTIVE ORDER BY THE GOVERNOR No.
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. 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.
0 >> %�[*tB���p#����^A�%�������(q/_��Ⅽ?�5|��s����֏��~����R="o�Ѣ��£,���E� nk�p���"u� ����_.��|�wq��-�"�V@x �E�*MxA��oW3 published /XIPLAYER_CM4 12 0 R As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet.