Poll finds self-censorship on the rise across political groups. A disturbingly high percentage of people polled earlier this month think private political donations should be grounds for getting fired. The number was especially high among respondents under age 30, with 44 percent of the youngest group saying business leaders who donate to Donald Trump should be fired and 27 percent saying the same for execs who give to Joe Biden. Meanwhile, 62 percent of all respondents said they're reluctant to share their political views for fear of offending othersup four points from when the same question was posed in 2017.

Those are a few of the findings in a new national poll conducted by the Cato Institute and YouGov.

When it comes to free expression, the "fears cross partisan lines," writes Cato Director of Polling Emily Ekins. "Majorities of Democrats (52%), independents (59%) and Republicans (77%) all agree they have political opinions they are afraid to share."

There are some differences of degree. A majority (58 percent) of people who categorized themselves as "very" liberal told pollsters they felt they could express themselves freely, while only 48 percent of "moderate" liberals said the same.

"Political expression is an issue that divides the Democratic coalition between centrist Democrats and their left flank," suggests Ekins.

The percentage of respondents who felt they could speak freely was even lower among those who labeled themselves "moderate" (36 percent), "conservative" (23 percent), or "very conservative" (23 percent).

Of course, the poll doesn't tell us how much people's perceptions on this front are true to life and how much they reflect distorted evaluations. Maybe staunch liberals feel they can speak more freely because cultural currents do indeed allow it; maybe they just don't realize when their free expression is offending or alienating people. Maybe it's a little of both, plus a lot of other reasons.

On the conservative side, the strong feeling of having to self-censor is likely somewhat rooted in a media and political culture that thrives on peddling its own marginalization. But there's also statistical evidence that self-identification with conservatism and the Republican Party are on the decline, and no doubt that conservative ideas are sidelined in many elite institutions.

It's also hard to guess what people actually mean about their politics when they describe themselves as stronger or less-strong "liberals" or "conservatives" in an era where these meanings are mutable and often bizarre.

Ekins notes that even strong liberals are less confident in their ability to speak freely in 2020 then they were in 2017: "the share who feel pressured to self-censor rose 12 points from 30% in 2017 to 42% in 2020." At the same time,

The share of moderates who self-censor increased 7 points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose 70% to 77%, also a 7-point increase. Strong conservatives are the only group with little change. They are about as likely now (77%) to say they hold back their views as in 2017 (76%).

Self-censorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly two-thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non-religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

Not all self-censorship is bad, of course. There are times and places for restraint. So it's hard to know quite how to interpret the results above.

Alas, another part of the study is much more unambiguously depressing: A large number of people think whether someone is employable ought to be tied to their personal politics.

"Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's campaign," notes Ekins. "Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump's re-election campaign." And:

Support rises among political subgroups. Support increases to 50% of strong liberals who support firing executives who personally donate to Trump. And more than a third (36%) of strong conservatives support firing an executive for donating to Biden's presidential campaign.

Young Americans are also more likely than older Americans to support punishing people at work for personal donations to Trump. Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives if they donate to Trump. This share declines to 22% among those over 55 years olda 20-point difference. An age gap also exists for Biden donors, but is less pronounced. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives who donate to Biden compared to 20% of those over 55a 7-point difference.

Respondents also expressed fear that their own political opinions or donations would cost them a job or a career opportunity. "Younger people are also more concerned than older people, irrespective of political viewpoint," notes Ekins.

Examining all Americans under 65, 37% of those under 30 are worried their political opinions could harm their career trajectories, compared to 30% of 3054 year-olds and 24% of 5564 year-olds. But the age gap is more striking taking into account political views.

A slim majority (51%) of Republicans under 30 fear their views could harm their career prospects compared to 39% of 3044 year-olds, 34% of 4554 year-olds, and 28% of 5564 year-old Republicans.

Democrats reflect a similar but less pronounced pattern. A third (33%) of Democrats under 30 worry they have views that could harm their current and future jobs, compared to 27% of 3054 year-olds, and 19% of 5564 year-old Democrats.

You can find the full surveyconducted July 16, 2020, with a national sample of 2,000 American adultshere. The sections on political donations and self-censorship are here. The margin of error is plus or minus 2.36 percentage points.

A couple of (positive) Portland updates:

Twitter is exploring subscription options.

The Malaysian government is backtracking on making people who post videos to their personal social-media accounts get a license.

A new documentary goes inside Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

More here:

Is Giving to Biden or Trump Grounds for Getting Fired? New Poll Finds a Disturbing Number of People Who Think It Should Be - Reason

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently outlined proposed reforms to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[1] Section 230 has been in place since the early days of the Internet and protects online platforms from liability for certain third-party posts. It has recently become a point of contention between Big Tech and the Trump Administration. Recently, a presidential tweet was labeled with a fact-checking message that described the content as unsubstantiated.[2] The President claimed the label was intended to chill his rights under the First Amendment and subsequently signed the Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship, calling for review and clarification of the scope of Section 230. The Executive Order also calls on the Secretary of Commerce and the Attorney General to engage in rule-making with the Federal Communications Commission to clarify when a tech company could be deemed to be taking part in not taken in good faith.[3] Additionally, the Order encouraged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate unfair or deceptive acts or practices committed by online platforms.

How did this relatively small piece of legislation become the center of a heated debate?

By way of background, Section 230 shields websites from legal liability for posts, including comments, images, and videos, of third-party users. At the time this legislation was passed, the Internet was vastly different from what it is today. In the 90s, as the tech world was beginning to grow, Congress sought to encourage that growth through statutory protections. Section 230 provides websites with immunity for posts left by users, and allows for Good Samaritan protection from civil lawsuits if websites remove or moderate posts that they consider to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.[4] This way, websites can still clean up posted content without having to worry about being targeted via lawsuits for choosing to police and self-regulate their own domains, so long as they do so in good faith.

Section 230 allows platforms to be available to all users to share, gather, and disseminate information. Websites, especially those with enormous platforms, host millions upon millions of individual posts every single day. Even with dedicated moderators and advanced algorithms in place, it is a huge undertaking to examine every single post to determine whether it is illegal or inappropriate; and even with a robust procedure in place, it is hardly fail-safe. But there is growing concern about who gets the final say about what is considered inappropriate and when it should be revised, removed, or labeled. Section 230 has become a flashpoint and raises complex First Amendment, online safety, and competition considerations.

The Executive Order alone might not seem like it has teeth, unless Congress agrees with the President and passes legislation that repeals or amends Section 230. But the rule-making prompted by the Executive Order could shift interpretation of the law, calling into doubt the wide protections enjoyed by tech companies. Moreover, Attorney General William Barr has been vocal about his concerns regarding Section 230 and its protections, prompting the DOJ to seriously examine the law to propose a way forward.

In February, the DOJ hosted a one-day workshop called Section 230 Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability? inviting both public and private stakeholders to confer about the laws transformation since its enactment to the present day and whether it needs to be modified to account for this new era of Big Tech. The DOJ states that it also met with companies that attended or indicated interest in talking about Section 230, although it is unclear which companies that included.

Last month, following its 10-month review of the law, the DOJ released its recommendations for Section 230 reform.[5] Rather than seek a complete repeal of the legislation, the DOJ identified four key categories where reform should take place in order to realign the scope of Section 230 with the realities of the modern internet.[6] These four areas are (1) Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content, (2) Clarifying Federal Government Enforcement Capabilities to Address Unlawful Content, (3) Promoting Competition, and (4) Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency.[7]

The first category seeks to strip away protection from those who purposely facilitate or solicit unlawful content and allows for civil lawsuits involving child abuse, terrorism, and cyber-stalking to proceed, thus incentivizing websites to be proactive about tracking and removing illegal content. The second category proposes more government intervention through civil enforcement actions. The third category seeks to clarify that companies cannot use Section 230 to protect themselves from antitrust actions where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.[8] Finally, the fourth category is aimed at refining the language of Section 230, including an addition of good faith.

Some argue that Section 230 should be updated to address some of the potential dangers of the growing Internet that were not present in 1996. If this effort gains more traction, many view it as imperative that tech representatives be involved in the conversation because they are the experts in devising the algorithms and training the moderators to track down illegal and harmful content. A companys role and responsibility to police, remove, and/or label content may implicate complex First Amendment concerns. There may not be a one-size-fits-all approach to updating Section 230 to address all posted content in all types of forums. Many will be watching to see whether there will be changes to this law that has helped fuel online growth.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform.%5B2%5D Twitter Safety (Twitter Safety). We added a label to two @realDonaldTrump Tweets about Californias vote-by-mail plans as part of our efforts to enforce our civic integrity policy. We believe those Tweets could confuse voters about what they need to do to receive a ballot and participate in the election process. May 27, 2020, 10:54 p.m. tweet.[3] Exec. Order on Preventing Online Censorship (May 28, 2020), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/.%5B4%5D 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(2)(A).[5] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform.%5B6%5D https://www.justice.gov/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996.%5B7%5D https://www.justice.gov/file/1286331/download.%5B8%5D Id. at p. 4.

Read more:

DOJ Takes a Stance on Section 230 Reform that Could Place Additional Burdens on Online Platforms - JD Supra