Last Updated on by SCARS Editorial Team

Trump Signs Historic Order To Address Flaws In Communications Decency Act [UPDATED: Revoked By Joe Biden]

A SCARSSCARS SCARS - Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc. A government registered crime victims' assistance & crime prevention nonprofit organization based in Miami, Florida, U.S.A. SCARS supports the victims of scams worldwide and through its partners in more than 60 countries around the world. Incorporated in 2015, its team has 30 years of continuous experience educating and supporting scam victims. Visit to learn more about SCARS. Insight

This was an important step in the direction of protecting everyone online and holding tech and social media companies accountable.

Unfortunately, President Biden revoked this order almost immediately on gaining the presidency! Thus serving to protect the tech companies and not the internet consumers!

Revoked by President Joe Biden May 14, 2021

The Tech Industry Lobby Wins!

Trump Signs Social Media Executive OrderExecutive Order An executive order is a directive from the President that has much of the same power as a federal law. Several landmark moments in American history came about directly from the use of executive orders issued from the United States President’s desk, including one Supreme Court decision that limited a presidential executive order issued by Harry Truman. That Calls For The Removal Of Liability Protections Over ‘Censoring’

This Affects So Much More Including Fakes & Scammers!

In the News –


The Story:

Flanked by Attorney General Bill Barr, President Trump signed an executive order in the Oval Office on Thursday that calls for new regulations under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) to remove statutory liability protections and cut federal funding for tech companies that engage in censorship and political conduct.
But why do we care about this?

Why This Matters?

Because the whole basis that allows social media companies to be plagued with fakes and scammers and not care is the 1996 Communications Decency Act Section 230.

It is the CDA section 230 that gives them immunity from anything that happens on their platforms.

If this law is attacked – the most fundamental law providing immunity for internet publishers – it will open up massive liability for huge numbers of actions against social media companies for careless, reckless, and callous behaviorBehavior   Behavior / Behavioral Actions Otherwise known as habits, behavior or behavioral actions are strategies to help prevent online exploitation that target behavior, such as social engineering of victims. Changing your behavior is the ONLY effective means to reduce or prevent scams. towards the users that must rely on these platforms.

SCARS has been working for years to bring the Communications Decency Act into the spotlight. It needs to be challenged and revised to protect the public. But the social media companies and so-called advocates that are in their pocket have been pushing to water it down, not strengthen control and liability for social media. The SCARS amendment is published on our website »  To learn more about the CDA read this: Why are there online scammers ignored by Social Media? »

We view this renewed focus on this flawed law as a major blessing for everyone, not just for political reasons. And for that reason we encourage you to support the government’s actions now – because this is not about President Trump – this is about all of our freedoms and online safety.

Because the major social media & tech giants are mostly American companies this will impact users & victims worldwide!

Text Of President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship –  Issued on: May 28, 2020

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.

Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy.  Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution.  The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet.  This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic.  When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power.  They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology.  Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms.  As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear