[EL] Twitter EO

[Nate Persily]

Apologies for being obtuse:
  My point about Citizens United was that if you believe that corporations
have an unfettered constitutional right to spend unlimited amounts on
campaign advertising, I would think that right would also extend to
publicizing factchecks about politicians, as well, without running the risk
of legal sanction.

----------------

Nate Persily

James B. McClatchy Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305-8610
(917) 570-3223
npersily at stanford.edu

www.persily.com


On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:14 AM Sean Parnell <
sean at impactpolicymanagement.com> wrote:

> Not entirely sure why the views of defenders of *Citizens United* are
> sought, but here goes (with the acknowledgement that, not possessing a law
> degree, my views should probably not be mistaken as quality legal
> analysis): it’s stupid. The one redeeming quality I find in the EO is that
> it is not nearly so badly/incoherently written as the EO from a few years
> back “repealing” the so-called Johnson Amendment, so props for that.
>
>
>
> Sean Parnell
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Nate Persily
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2020 12:38 AM
> *To:* Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* [EL] Twitter EO
>
>
>
> Attached is the draft of the Executive Order regarding removal of CDA 230
> liability for Twitter and other internet platforms as well as
> encouragement of investigations of the Silicon Valley platforms.  Gotta
> say, this is truly breathtaking.   Eager to hear reactions from defenders
> of Citizens United on this.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200528/c19d7cb5/attachment.html>