bump for later
Ping
I am certain that CJ John Roberts will have an op-ed in the WSJ tomorrow begging someone to bring a lawsuit against Section 230 so he and his fellow justices can immediately declare Section 230 to be unconstitutional.
thanks for posting....i was unaware of the Railway case, super helpful.
Think article is off base because Constitution prohibits only government from censoring, not everyone and anyone.
If Lord of the Rings were real, Republicans would fall all over themselves to give Sauron back his property.
What’s next, Amazon can quarter troops in your home because they are not the goberment?
Great opinion piece—if we had actual rule of law.
Unfortunately, the legalization of massive voter fraud and its de facto ratification by the Supreme Court has nullified the Constitution.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Without section 230 protections these companies would not be in a position to censor participant comments. This means that, through 230 law, the government is censoring participant comments. That’s a violation of Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Wasn’t the 1973 movie ROLLERBALL about sports being taken over by Big Tech?
Agreed - great opinion piece. Thanks for sharing.
I think a few people here either skipped the following or just didn’t understand it:
“Google, Facebook and Twitter should be treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines. Using a combination of statutory inducements and regulatory threats, Congress has co-opted Silicon Valley to do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.” That’s what Congress did by enacting Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which not only permits tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech but immunizes them from liability if they do so.
The justices have long held that the provision of such immunity can turn private action into state action.”