Because Twitter can’t decide who to ban. Speaks Mirabelli (former Constitutional Court)
As the jurist, former vice president of the CSM and former president of the Constitutional Court, Cesare Mirabelli, commented on Twitter's decision to obscure Trump's account
On Trump "Twitter's decision had political relevance, the risk that private powers manage these situations is evident".
This is the opinion of Cesare Mirabelli, president emeritus of the Constitutional Court, who commented with the Agi on Twitter's decision to close Donald Trump's personal account for "the risk that it will further incite violence". The reference is to the siege of the Capitol on 6 January .
"It would be good" for an Authority "and not the manager himself" to decide the temporary or permanent blackout of an account in the presence of messages that could constitute the risk of incitement to violence.
While discussing whether the indefinite suspension of Twitter of President Donald Trump's account is ethically right, here is what the jurist and former vice president of the CSM, Mirabelli (President of the Constitutional Court from February 23 to November 21 2000) thinks.
WHAT TWITTER DID WITH DONALD TRUMP'S ACCOUNT
On Friday the social media founded by Jack Dorsey permanently excluded the outgoing US president, Donald Trump. Which, Bloomberg recalls, has over 88 million people following his account.
"After careful review of the recent tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account, we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement to violence," Twitter said. "In the context of this week's horrific events, we made it clear Wednesday that further violations of the Twitter Rules would potentially lead to this same course of action."
Twitter has therefore permanently banned Trump, as well as having proceeded to delete messages that Trump himself wrote immediately afterwards on the official account of the White House and the United States presidency.
Twitter told CNN that the Trump campaign account has also been permanently banned. Before @TeamTrump was suspended, he was seen sharing the same four-tweet thread that Trump attempted to post from the @POTUS account.
DECISION IS UP TO AN INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY
According to the president emeritus of the Constitutional Court Cesare Mirabelli, to evaluate must be "an independent body, which is not characterized by governmental or political control, because in this case it would be even worse as it could give a political connotation to control".
In this case, in fact, a private technology company, which responds to no one other than its shareholders, which acts according to policies and principles that are self-defined, has made the decision to obscure the president of the United States from a means of communication that has relevance. policy.
FOR MIRABELLI THERE IS POLITICAL RELEVANCE IN THE CASE OF TWITTER
The constitutionalist underlines that another problem is “the responsibility that the manager has or could have for the dissemination of messages, if he has a control, and what the consequences of the control may be: closure or suspension. In this specific case, the decision of Twitter had political relevance, and the risk that private powers manage these situations is evident ”.
In fact, remember that federal law (section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) releases social media companies from liability when a third party uses the platform. The 1996 rule protects technology companies from liability for content posted by users, guaranteeing freedom of expression on the web.
But today the largest digital platforms – where politicians also communicate – are owned by private companies. This is why the reform of section 230 in the United States is being discussed.
According to Mirabelli, the social networks “have taken on public importance due to the diffusion and incisiveness and offer of the service. They also have a dominant position as the type of services they provide and entrust their economic productivity to this ”. Mirabelli stresses that "there is a principle of equality that also concerns relations with individuals".
NEED FOR EVALUATION BY AN INDEPENDENT BODY AND NOT BY THE MANAGER HIMSELF
Furthermore, according to the president emeritus of the Constitutional Court, Mirabelli, “we cannot run the risk of marginalizing those who are different or those who think differently. I believe that a decision like the one adopted can be taken without hesitation if the use of social media means the commission of crimes, or if the messages transmitted already constitute crimes. This is why I say that an independent body evaluates this and not the manager himself. Are we now able to affirm that those messages constituted a crime? ".
POSSIBILITY OF A LITIGATION
Finally, the president emeritus of the consultation then highlights a no less important aspect, especially for a giant of the web world: “A dispute can arise, and not only from a compensation point of view, therefore economic, but also with a 'punitive' characterization. And in the US system this exists, there is this possibility of exercising it against a company or a single natural person ".
“A similar measure – says Mirabelli – may not be convenient. The knot is what really brought about this effect. Those messages were fuel on the fire, it is said. A disheartening element emerges from the images. What would we think if in Italy the demonstrators entered the House or the Senate by force? It would no longer be a demonstration, which is also the salt of democracy, but never against institutions ”.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/innovazione/perche-twitter-non-puo-decidere-chi-bannare-parla-mirabelli-ex-corte-costituzionale/ on Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:55:24 +0000.