President Donald Trump today signed an executive order holding social media giants like Facebook and Twitter accountable for censoring pro-life conservatives. The big tech companies have repeatedly subjected leading pro-life groups to substandard treatment, subjecting them to shadowbans, false factchecks, and prohibiting them from advertising to grow their audience.
President Trump’s Executive Order calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it so that social media companies that engage in censorship and political conduct will not be able to keep their liability shield.
The order directs federal agencies like the FCC and FTC to review whether they can place new rules on companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
“Today, I am signing an Executive Order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people,” he said. “Currently social media giants like Twitter received unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they are a neutral platform, which they are not.”
“What they’re doing is tantamount to monopoly, you can say it’s tantamount to taking over the airwaves,” Trump said. “Can’t let it happen. Otherwise, we’re not going to have a Democracy, we’re not going to have anything to do with a republic.”
Underscoring the importance of social media, asked by a reporter if he would delete his twitter account given his concern with Twitter, Trump note dhow fair social media is needed to counter the bias in the pro-abortion media.
“If you weren’t fake, I would not even think about it, I would do it in a heartbeat, but the news is fake,” he said.
Trump announced that he is directing his administration to “develop policies and procedures to ensure taxpayer dollars are not going in any social media company that repress free speech.”
censorship of pro-life organizations has been pervasive.
The West Virginia-based ministry Warriors for Christ repeatedly has had its Facebook pages removed by the social media giant. Its main page, which has more than 225,000 followers, was removed again last week, allegedly for “hateful, threatening or obscene” content.
In 2015, Facebook also refused to allow Live Action News to advertise one of its stories because “the image or video thumbnail may shock or evoke a negative response from viewers.” The image was of baby Eli Thompson who was born without a nose.
Earlier this year, two Hollywood actors who are working with pro-life leaders on a film detailing the true story behind Roe v. Wade said Facebook is blocking their project.
Nick Loeb told World News Daily that he believes the social media giant is censoring them because of the film’s pro-life message and its exposure of Planned Parenthood’s eugenic history.
“They have even blocked people sharing the ads I paid for,” Loeb said. “This is stealing or fraud.”
The Wexford/Missaukee Right to Life, an affiliate of Right to Life of Michigan, noticed on Oct. 4 that its advertising account on Facebook had been shut down. The group said it still is not sure why.
“I have heard that Facebook is run and managed by a group of biased liberals under the management of Mark Zuckerberg,” said Don Hoitenga, who manages the pro-life group’s Facebook page. “I can now believe the rumors as I have been banned from advertising on Facebook.”
When the group asked for an explanation, it received this response: “There’s no further action you may take here. We don’t support ads for your business model.” The email from Facebook also said its decision is final.
Barbara Listing, president of RTL of Michigan, urged the social media giant to be more transparent with its advertising policies and procedures. Earlier this year, Facebook also blocked her organization’s advertising account. It later reinstated the account after the news media drew attention to the matter.
“We achieved no results working through Facebook’s customer service department and the Better Business Bureau. Facebook only appears to respond to media attention to fix what they claim is a simple mistake,” Listing said.
“Are these bans automated? Does a human being respond to questions from users? Does Facebook think they can get away with censoring smaller pages and users because they can’t draw attention? These are questions Facebook must respond to if they truly want to build community trust,” Listing added.
In 2016, a Maryland pro-life pregnancy center also had its ad initially rejected by Facebook. The social media site tagged the phrase “if you are pregnant” as objectionable, likening it to “if you are fat.” Facebook later approved the ad after the pro-life group modified the phrase.
Facebook became a subject of national news in 2016 after some of its workers admitted that they suppressed conservative news stories in favor of liberal ones. LifeNews.com, which is the leading pro-life news website on the Internet and the only one specifically
Here are some examples of social media bias against pro-life groups: