Tech platforms face a ‘no-win’ choice with livestreamed execution

Por Alfred Ng — POLITICO – TOP Stories

Social media platforms have spent years restricting graphic violence. Now the Trump administration’s plan to livestream a public execution could test how far they’re willing to enforce those rules.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon have said they will livestream the firing squad execution of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan on Dec. 3. It would be the first time a U.S. death sentence is broadcast online, and the companies have yet to say whether they would host the stream or remove users’ copies of it.

“The companies will wait until the very last minute to tell the public what they’ll do because they know there could be a chance that Trump pulls back on it,” Katie Harbath, founder of the tech consulting firm Anchor Change and a former public policy director at Meta, told POLITICO.

Social media platforms are already under mounting pressure around the world to protect children from graphic and violent content. The planned livestreamed execution is putting that obligation to the test: European regulators are warning tech companies against broadcasting the livestream, while Australian lawmakers are calling regulators to prevent broadcasts on social media.

The major platforms, including TikTok, Elon Musk’s X, Amazon’s Twitch, Alphabet’s YouTube, and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram all have policies restricting depictions of death and violence. Meta’s policy, for example, explicitly prohibits livestreams of capital punishments. But the companies also have ties to the Trump administration, which can affect their ability to operate in the U.S. and influence on AI policy. A TikTok spokesperson pointed POLITICO to the company’s policies against showing shooting deaths.

None of the other companies responded to multiple requests for comment on whether they would enforce their platform’s rules about uploads of the Trump administration’s public execution. Experts told POLITICO they believe the decision could hinge on the midterm elections and the political consequences of enforcing — or setting aside — their rules.

The planned livestream has drawn opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, and President Trump and his advisers are debating whether to no longer livestream the execution, according to a report from ABC News. Vice President JD Vance last week told reporters he won’t watch it.

If Democrats win control of Congress, platforms that allow broadcast could face scrutiny for appearing to disregard their own policies, experts said.

“On its face, livestreaming an execution would violate almost every major platform’s policies about depictions of violence. But every platform also preserves for itself some wiggle room for newsworthy or otherwise notable content,” Evelyn Douek, an associate professor at Stanford Law School who focuses on internet regulations and First Amendment rights, told POLITICO. “The history of how these exceptions have been applied show that at the end of the day these policies are more about politics than about principle. The platforms will do what they view as most politically expedient.”

Tech platforms have historically worked quickly to remove videos of public executions, which are often circulated by terrorist organizations. But an execution order by the U.S. government presents a different challenge, experts said, because the companies could face backlash either for carrying a broadcast or blocking it.

“The social media services are in a no-win position when it comes to publishing content like this,” Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University’s School of Law and co-director of the school’s Datta Center for High Tech Law, told POLITICO. “Many people are horrified by the government’s choice to livestream the content in the first place.”

The legal risks for carrying the broadcast appear limited. Section 230 of the Communications Act generally protects tech companies from liability for content posted by users. Platforms could also argue that the execution is newsworthy or historically significant, even if it conflicts with their rules.

The Army has regulations barring people younger than 18 from witnessing a military execution. But enforcement would fall to the Defense Department, which experts said is unlikely to act against its own broadcast.

“They don’t have much to worry about because of Section 230, and also the enforcement apparatus is the Trump administration,” said Brenner Fissell, a Villanova Law professor who specializes in criminal and military law. “And the CEOs are all hanging out at the White House.”

Blocking the stream or limiting its reach could carry political costs. YouTube paid $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit with Trump over suspending his account; Meta paid $25 million in a similar settlement, and X paid $10 million. Vance has said he does not plan to watch the execution, but a platform that refused to carry it could still face retaliation, Fissell said.

“If one of the tech companies refused to permit livestreaming, I could easily see that leading to some sort of retaliation,” Fissell said.

Fonte: POLITICO – TOP Stories