hxxps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-and-biden-both-want-to-revoke-section-230-but-for-different-reasons/ar-BB14NKih
From the article:
The two politicians disagree on why the law should be revoked.
Trump's concerns involve the moderation of content on the internet, like recent fact-checks put on his tweets.
Biden has said he wants social media sites to be held liable for the content posted on their platforms; currently they are not under Section 230.
I've been trying to warn y'all about this but you wouldn't listen. You'll learn that I was right when it's too late. Section 230 protection isn't for "big tech." It's for the little guy. Once section 230 is repealed there will be EVEN MORE censorship on places like Facebook and Twitter. Why? Because they we'll then be compelled to take down controversial stuff because they will be liable. Now they just take down controversial stuff because they want to.
The only real way to go after big tech for the censorship is to use the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Their is clear and convincing evidence, even beyond a reasonable doubt evidence, that Facebook, Twitter and Google conspired to restrict commerce by de-platforming the jointly agreed were bad actors. A conviction under the Sherman Anti-Trust act could result in 10 years in federal prison, a $1,000,000 fine for individuals and a $100,000,000 fine for corporations.
But repealing Section 230 just gives another avenue to shut down small alternate voices. People are upset about the pro Trump blogger that got arrested for spreading the meme that encouraged black people to "vote by text" for Hillary and put "paid for by Hillary Clinton" on the bottom of it? Imagine if every forum that meme was posted on could be held liable? Because that would be the effect of repealing Section 230. Oh, but you say "What about the left wing twitter troll who posted the meme encouraging Trump voters to vote by text?" Understand this. I AM EXPLAINING THE CURRENT SYSTEM TO YOU! I AM NOT DEFENDING IT! So, why give a corrupt system even more power to be even more corrupt?
I've actually read the case law that led to Section 230. Prodigy Inc (now defunct commercial BBS) was successfully sued in a state court for liable for something one of their users posted. The state court treated them as a "publisher" because even though the didn't produce the content, the moderated it. When congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), they included Section 230 because they wanted Internet companies to be free to take down "indecent" material, without being subject to liable for not taking down every controversial posting. The law makes sense. You should not be held liable for libel just because you ban someone for posting porn.
Now, maybe there is some way to amend the law that doesn't do what Biden wants, which is to open the door for more censorship. But a straight up repeal will most certainly open the door to more censorship. Platforms will be stuck with one of two choices. Either allow everything like the old USENET where even child porn could be found and it was actually impossible to moderate, or moderate every think that some judge and jury somewhere might find problematic. It's not just libel laws that are at issue. The Trump twitter troll that got arrested didn't technically libel anyone. Well...I suppose saying "This ad was paid for by Hillary Clinton" might fit under libel. But if that small piece had been left out, based on my reading of the case, he still could have been charged.
Anyway, that's all I have for now. Don't say I didn't tell you so. I told you so over and over again.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us