Unconstitutional. The government can decide whether website owners are responsible for the content their users post, and Section 230 is the government deciding they aren't. What they can't do is pick and choose what website owners are liable for based on the content of the posts. That's content based discrimination and the courts apply the strictest level of scrutiny on regulating content. We have a 6-3 conservative majority on the court, and even the liberals on the court take an expansive view on free speech. No way this survives even if they get it through Congress by some Faustian bargain.
They'll just remove Section 230 and replace it with a law that protects very specific categories of websites - those owned by big tech that are willing to censor what the government wants censored. Then glowies flood any other communication platforms with illegal content, and they commence with the lawsuits and takedowns.
The CP and "calls to violence" get so out of hand that Congress passes new Internet regulation that puts the burden on service providers to police content, and allows the DOJ to seize all domain name that are subjects of an investigation. (they already do this for "piracy" which is just another form of speech)
Not much different I suppose. He would be far more trusted and effective if he simply told the truth instead of lying to try to manipulate the public into doing what he wanted.
He's an incompetent boob so he doesn't know what the truth is. He's probably gotten where he is by just saying whatever sounds clever and hoping it's the truth. "Uh, well Texas is doing great keeping their COVID cases down because the population is all wearing masks. (sheepish grin)"
Unconstitutional. The government can decide whether website owners are responsible for the content their users post, and Section 230 is the government deciding they aren't. What they can't do is pick and choose what website owners are liable for based on the content of the posts. That's content based discrimination and the courts apply the strictest level of scrutiny on regulating content. We have a 6-3 conservative majority on the court, and even the liberals on the court take an expansive view on free speech. No way this survives even if they get it through Congress by some Faustian bargain.
They'll just remove Section 230 and replace it with a law that protects very specific categories of websites - those owned by big tech that are willing to censor what the government wants censored. Then glowies flood any other communication platforms with illegal content, and they commence with the lawsuits and takedowns.
The CP and "calls to violence" get so out of hand that Congress passes new Internet regulation that puts the burden on service providers to police content, and allows the DOJ to seize all domain name that are subjects of an investigation. (they already do this for "piracy" which is just another form of speech)
lol I read that as Faucian bargain
Not much different I suppose. He would be far more trusted and effective if he simply told the truth instead of lying to try to manipulate the public into doing what he wanted.
He's an incompetent boob so he doesn't know what the truth is. He's probably gotten where he is by just saying whatever sounds clever and hoping it's the truth. "Uh, well Texas is doing great keeping their COVID cases down because the population is all wearing masks. (sheepish grin)"
Thats when you trade your soul to be InStyle's man of the year. Not as popular as ultimate knowledge, but some people dont barter well.