Only Congress can remove 230, so the EO empowers the administrative state, said Committee for Justice Director-Public Policy Ashley Baker. “It’s also notable that it does so by asking the NTIA to direct the FCC to make rules,” she said. “Since the FCC is an independent agency, the president cannot directly order it to do this.”
Curt Levey, president of the limited government nonprofit Committee for Justice, said fact-checking becomes a “no-win situation” for social media companies if they face legal challenges for their decisions. “We don’t know what the 230 landscape is going to look like years from now,” he said. “The safest thing to do would be to stop fact-checking. No one is going to sue you for not fact-checking...”
Curt Levey — president of the Committee for Justice, a nonprofit group promoting limited government and judicial nominations — said that the executive order itself has 'limited teeth' regarding Section 230, since it requests the independent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adjust their interpretations of Section 230. Still, if the FTC were to take some action at Trump’s request, that would “surely be challenged” in the courts, he said.
The Administration cannot order the FCC and FTC, both independent agencies, to take any actions. While the executive order's more limited approach – petitioning the FCC for rulemaking and directing the FCC to 'consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law' – is permissible, the FCC rules and FTC enforcement actions that result may be unlawful. Depending on the details, they may well violate the First Amendment rights of social media platforms or interpret Section 230 in a manner inconsistent with the statutory text, its intent, and its interpretation by the courts.
"We are watching as the Democrats and radicalized special interest groups are using this fog of COVID to fundamentally remake American elections," said Catherine Engelbrecht, the president of True the Vote, a group that says it is trying to protect against voter fraud. She spoke on Thursday during a webinar sponsored by a conservative nonprofit, the Committee for Justice.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Democratic officials and activists prioritized pushing states to implement universal mail-in balloting, eliminating in-person voting altogether. These mandatory vote-by-mail and forced early voting policies would disenfranchise voters through fraud and mistake, and violate voters’ fundamental right to vote. Advocates are also trying to impose mail-in voting through court orders, invalidating voters’ votes for their representatives, rather than judges, to make these laws. In this virtual panel, election experts Jim Bopp, Catherine Engelbrecht, and Jason Snead weigh in on how vote-by-mail violates voting rights and the recent flood of litigation related to this issue.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Democratic officials and activists prioritized pushing states to implement universal mail-in balloting, eliminating in-person voting altogether. These mandatory vote-by-mail and forced early voting policies would disenfranchise voters through fraud and mistake, and violate voters’ fundamental right to vote. Advocates are also trying to impose mail-in voting through court orders, invalidating voters’ votes for their representatives, rather than judges, to make these laws. In this virtual panel, experts weigh in on how vote-by-mail violates voting rights and the recent flood of litigation related to this issue. Feauturing Jim Bopp, Jr., Catherine Engelbrecht, and Jason Sead.
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg spent roughly $500 million on the 2020 presidential race and has very little to show for it. This should silence the ridiculous liberal fearmongering about Citizens United v. FEC (2010) once and for all.
Ashley Baker, director of Public Policy at the Committee for Justice, meanwhile warned that any proposed government solutions to the issues with Section 230 “are worse than the problem.” "Calling for top-down intervention by the government into social media content would give bureaucrats immense control over online speech," Baker said via email.
Contrary to popular belief, Citizens United did not let loose the dogs of corporate political warfare. As Committee for Justice President Curt Levey explained, this decision left most of the limits on political spending in place. "The total ban on corporate contributions to candidates, political parties, and political action committees remains in place," he explained.
Ten years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its famous Citizens United decision, striking down a federal ban on independent campaign advertising by corporations and labor unions as a violation of the First Amendment.
Last year, the Committee for Justice continued to play an influential role in holding judges and politicians accountable to the constitution. We worked to reclaim the judiciary from activist judges, confront the unaccountable administrative state, and oppose calls to restructure the Supreme Court.
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny held that courts should apply narrow tailoring to violations of the freedom of association. Has that requirement been overruled such that the right to associate privately does not enjoy the strong protective standard that applies to other First Amendment rights, which this Court has held requires narrow tailoring regardless of the level of scrutiny?
It may never be known whether Obama’s tirade against the Supreme Court was politically motivated or sincere. Levey for one is skeptical. “They didn’t worry about it when it was George Soros, who was doing this before the Koch brothers did,” he said. “There’s a lot of hypocrisy involved.”
At The Federalist Society blog, Ashley Baker remarks that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the court held that a private nonprofit that runs a public-access TV channel is not a “state actor” and therefore cannot be sued for violating the First Amendment, "notably declined — despite clear opportunities — to opine on online speech."