Why would Twitter not be able to flag / annotate / censor any content it sees fit?
<p><a href="https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf" rel="noreferrer">https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/</a></p>

<p>As I understand it, the 1st amendment is to protect 'free speech' from <strong><em>government</em></strong> censorship, not platform censorship.  Is this not correct?  In others words, the first amendment 'leashes' government.</p>

<p><a href="https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2019/08/deplatformed-social-media-censorship-and-the-first-amendment/" rel="noreferrer">UPDATE:</a> a basic constitutional doctrine called <strong><em>State Action</em></strong>. It’s the notion that the Constitution only limits things the government does, not things that private individuals do. (and presumably social media, a private corporation)</p>

<p>If the above presumptions are correct, why wouldn't a commercial platform (Twitter, Facebook, social media, etc.) be able to remove or annotate content as it sees fit (i.e. <a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/public-interest" rel="noreferrer">Terms of Service</a> or otherwise)?  <strong><em>IANAL</em></strong> and do not understand the purpose of the document</p>

<p>The essence of <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/" rel="noreferrer">the order</a>'s argument is that in editing user generated content outside of the provisions in one section of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230" rel="noreferrer">Communications Decency Act</a> (CDA), the platform necessarily excludes itself from the protections afforded by another section of the CDA.</p>

<p>The EFF says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... Even though neither the statute nor court opinions that interpret it
  mush these two Section 230 provisions together, the order asks the
  Federal Communications Commission to start a rulemaking and consider
  linking the two provision's liability shields. The order asks the FCC
  to consider whether a finding that a platform failed to act in "good
  faith" under subsection (c)(2) also disqualifies the platform from
  claiming immunity under section (c)(1).</p>
  
  <p>In short, the order tasks government agencies with defining “good
  faith” and eventually deciding whether any platform’s decision to
  edit, remove, or otherwise moderate user-generated content meets it,
  upon pain of losing access to all of Section 230's protections. ...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The order also argues that the very popular social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are the functional equivalent of the public square, not merely private providers protected by the First Amendment, and therefore should not be able to edit user generated content. The EFF article quotes from a Supreme Court judgment that says "merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints."</p>

<p>Recommend the full article: <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/05/trump-executive-order-misreads-key-law-promoting-free-expression-online-and" rel="noreferrer">https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/05/trump-executive-order-misreads-key-law-promoting-free-expression-online-and</a></p>

<p>See also Techdirt's article, <a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200528/01321044592/two-things-to-understand-about-trumps-executive-order-social-media-1-distraction-2-legally-meaningless.shtml" rel="noreferrer">The Two Things To Understand About Trump's Executive Order On Social Media: (1) It's A Distraction (2) It's Legally Meaningless</a>.</p>

<p>[edit]</p>

<p><a href="https://reason.com/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-publisher-distributor-platform-distinction/" rel="noreferrer">Eugene Volokh wrote a good explainer with background</a>.</p>

<p>Regarding the social-media-platforms-become-state-actors argument, see this recent D.C. Circuit judgment on appeal (<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6929144-FreedomWatch.html" rel="noreferrer">Freedom Watch v Google etc</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Freedom Watch's First Amendment claim fails because it does not
  adequately allege that the Platforms can violate the First Amendment. In general, the First Amendment 'prohibits only
  <em>governmental</em> abridgment of speech.' Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v.
  Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019). Freedom Watch contends that,
  because the Platforms provide an important forum for speech, they are
  engaged in state action. But, under Halleck, 'a private entity who
  provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into
  a state actor.' ... </p>
</blockquote>

<p>This was a group that alleged Google, Facebook, Twitter and Apple "conspired to suppress conservative political views ... its audience and revenues and succeeded in reducing each". Very similar to Trump's complaints.</p>

<p>And "this idea that Section 230 requires sites to moderate in a neutral fashion has become very popular even though it has no basis in reality or law" - Ken White (aka Popehat) in <a href="https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2019/08/deplatformed-social-media-censorship-and-the-first-amendment/" rel="noreferrer">another good explainer and podcast about this</a>.</p>

<p>This is not actually a First Amendment issue; as you correctly state, the First Amendment only limits government actions, not those of private citizens or organizations.</p>

<p>However, companies like Twitter currently enjoy some liability protections that are commonly understood to be based on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that require them to act as free conduits of information posted by their users. If they exercise editorial control over the content, they may lose these protections.</p>

<p>Section 230 says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The distinction between <em>information content provider</em> and <em>interactive computer service</em> is important. If the service provider exercises editorial control, they're generally understood to be the former. As I understand it, the distinction is intended to be analogous to the difference between a publishing company and a printing service. For example, a newspaper publisher can be sued for libel, but the company they contract with to print the newspaper would not be considered a party in the lawsuit.</p>

<p>While the First Amendment does not directly apply to the private sector, it does express the importance that our society places in free and open discourse. While there may not be any laws that prohibit Twitter from censoring its content, such actions may impact its effectiveness as a platform for this discussion. So even though they're not actually doing anything illegal, they're violating the <em>spirit</em> of Free Speech.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://twitter.com/en/tos" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Twitter Terms of Service</a> says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations or other intellectual property misappropriation, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notice that it says nothing about labeling content based on fact checking or political views.</p>

<p>The "purpose of the document" is pure politics; in a legal sense, it will go nowhere, unless it - through what will be a long court and/or legislative process - somehow forces a legislative change in <a href="https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230" rel="noreferrer">Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act</a> in that publishers would be responsible for the public's speech on their platform.</p>

<p>Or, somehow, there is a successful effort to amend the 1st Amendment that states <em>Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...</em></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>...why wouldn't a commercial platform (Twitter, Facebook, social media,
  etc.) be able to remove or annotate content as it sees fit...</p>
</blockquote>

<p>They already do. Twitter is a private company; they can legally write and enforce their TOS. See <a href="https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules" rel="noreferrer">The Twitter Rules</a>. Their <em>legal</em> ability to do so is what has prompted the <em>political threat</em> to change the law or the Constitution.</p>

united-states first-amendment