Section 230 Battle Joined

I think Paul is on the same page as Donald Trump: https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/trumps-section-230-reform-is-repudiation-in-disguise/
The idea behind 230 was that these platforms couldn't possibly edit what people post. Yet, Facebook and others have been editing and censoring posts, mostly right-wing ones, thus incurring the ire of the right. Facebook does often allow a user to click through a warning, and many times I find that what Facebook "fact-checkers" call false is simply something that is contrary to the orthodox Leftist belief-system.

1644: I did agree with Trump, but for different reasons. I think he should be able to be sued and Facebook and Twitter should be able to be sued for libelous posts he makes. That is not where he's coming from. I also agreed with him about removing the prohibition against members of the clergy making political endorsements from the pulpit. Again, for different reasons, though we both claim to ground our concerns in the First Amendment.

This is really a case for state censorship in disguise.
The Twitter Files have confirmed what we suspected: the US government and its agencies were paying/ threatening social media outlets (still waiting for FB and YouTube files) to censor opinions that clashed with official policies. There goes the First Amendment. Shall we learn to live without it?
Will social media be responsible for censoring a President who says we must invade Iraq because there are weapons of mass destruction, a claim that was false at the time and subsequently proven so.
And what about claim that Hilary Clinton only lost the election for President because Donald Trump had colluded with Russia?
The government spent 2+ years and millions of dollars pushing the fabricated Steele Dossier and all of the above was definitively proven FALSE by Aaron Mate and other responsible journalists.
We know the media collaborated with the government and Big Pharma to suppress ANY questioning of police re: Covid, including the Great Barrington Declaration. They also collaborated in pushing the shot when it was already known that it did not prevent contracting the virus or spreading it.
I could go on but I only have 790 characters left.
In conclusion, there is no GOOD censorship. We do prevent publication of pedophilia and the ilk, but in the realm of ideas, policies, data, opinion, censorship is a Pandora's Box that the Founders shut close and it should stay that way.
I plan to write my Congressional representatives to vote NO on changes. Reasonable modifications should be part of a public debate and not left to academics.

Do Putin-puppet Russian assets who try to overthrow our democracy by broadcasting endless corrosive lies to divide Americans and foment political violence have the right to unfettered free expression too?

1644, I too have issues with Facebook et al. But there is the matter of scale. There are about three billion FB accounts that are used in a given month worldwide. And there are a myriad of ways of posting potentially harmful or libellous information. AI is getting more powerful every day. But it could be used both to filter potentially harmful information and to circumvent these filters.

Today, January 27th is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day to honor the 6 million Jews and millions of others who died because of a system that produced a Hitler capable of unimaginable crimes agains humanity.

The "rot" that we see everyday online and elsewhere is clearly a reflection of the U.S. capitalist system that was always been rotten, but is now almost over. We are now in the belly of the beast.

Patricia Kane thank you for your vision and the important points you make especially that there is no good censorship.

Instead of censorship we need to build a strong socialist society where everyone is heard, where people are imagining how much better our country could be and dedicating themselves to making that change happen. That's the real meaning of "Make America Great Again" - a slogan created by the fascists in Europe decades ago.

The evil system of U.S. Capitalism is at the core of the issues alluded to in this piece, not words that need to be censored. How ironic that Americans can't or won't see that it's capitalism that produced the rot we see?

Censoring can be viewed as an element in the trump fascist apparatus in the making.

I am grateful that the out-of-control trump and other fascistic diatribes are published because then we can see exactly what a fascist looks like. I'm glad that he's back on social media because Americans need to see and hear what fascism looks.

To win, we need to know our enemy well.


We need to see the hate that is out there in print or hear hateful words that are spoken. In fact, I contend that we have a right to see the development (or not) of fascism in the United States.

Thank you, Patricia Kane, for helping us to remember that the "truth" will set us free, not censoring fascist ideas no matter where they appear.

Freedom of the press is our lifeline to the truth whether we like or agree with what we hear.

Please. When the silencing of extreme voices happens, we are in real trouble in La-La Land.

While it’s important not to censor free speech, is is also important to fact check and avoid libel and slander or risk getting sued as a publisher or a writer. You also can face charges if you incite a riot, or yell fire in a crowded building when there isn’t a fire. Hate speech, threats, intimidation, harassment, content promoting violence, or illegal acts, or underage or forced sexual content can be prosecuted. Not all speech is free without consequences. I do think the algorithms that these social media platforms use amplify and direct people to harmful content, and therefore they bear some responsibility for the way they steer and funnel users of their platforms to fall down rabbit holes for profits. The platforms algorithms and profit structures from clickbait should be examined and regulated and they should have to fact check and screen out illegal activity, violence, harassment, intimidation, threats, and restrict inappropriate content for underage users. Right now the internet and social media is the wild, Wild West where anything goes and is barely moderated or monitored or scrutinized. It’s all about the profits for these platforms, regardless of the harm they cause as a result of likes, clicks or retweets, etc.
It’s a delicate balance, but anything that would not be allowed or would be restricted for content or for the age of the viewer- in print, in a newspaper, magazine, book, or on television, movies or in a theater, or said on a soapbox on the town square should also have the same rules apply to online platforms.

1644- I know, it is a delicate balance, protecting objectionable speech while regulating intimidation, threats, harassment and inciting a riot. But the ACLU has been very good at protecting the right to speech that one side or the other side on a topic is considered objectionable. But society has been able to regulate signage through zoning, and various forms of communication in print and on radio or tv or movies or in public has been regulated somewhat to protect people from harm. It is not an easy task to balance.

I agree with Paul Bass that civil suits for libel or defamation are the appropriate remedy for damaging falsehoods. That is what the court decision against Alex Jones did successfully.
I view social media as being similar to a conference phone call. The government may not spy on the conversation, much less stop it. Or perhaps it's easier to see it as a speaker on a soap box on the Boston Common who attracts an audience. The police may NOT intervene to censor or halt the speech. The police are required to protect the speaker.
The problem with censorship is what is objectionable to me may be perfectly acceptable to you and vice-versa.
In other words, the minute you allow someone to censor, YOU are the next potential target.
The real danger is that the government is "manufacturing consent" by creating simplistic arguments for easy targets. I think Trump is a buffoon and has a limited intellect BUT he wanted to end the war in Afghanistan (until the generals who run the wars beat him back). He, like Barack Obama and John F. Kennedy Jr., wanted to reach out to Russia to cooperate and not continue the Cold War that was supposed to end with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Censorship kept people from knowing about and discussing the Great Barrington Declaration that advised against lock downs and extreme measures for the predictable damage that occurred.
6 corporation own the major networks and news outlets.
Dissent and questioning have been driven from Twitter, YouTube and Parler to Rumble, SubStack and other new sites.
We need to re-instate the federal Fair Comment laws that required an opportunity to respond to criticisms.
We need MORE speech, not less speech.
We need MORE questioning of everything. Show me the data!!!
The chief purveyor of disinformation is the government and its agencies. At least refuse to be complicit.