Big Tech censorship on the internet is threatening free speech and internet freedom, and Congress and the President must act to put an end to this.
Big Tech censorship has grown increasingly blatant and politically-motivated, particularly against conservatives. Most notably, Big Tech companies colluded in January 2021 to silence U.S. President Donald Trump and his campaign. Not only this, but Big Tech companies also silenced high-profile supporters of Trump and worked to destroy the pro-free speech site Parler. Among countless other examples, social media platforms censored the attorney defending a 17-year-old prosecuted for exercising his Second Amendment rights, any coronavirus information contradicting the corrupt globalist WHO’s narratives including the scientifically-grounded theory that the virus was manmade, and a New York Post article revealing significant corruption by the Biden family. According to Twitter’s CEO, a larger crackdown is coming.
Additionally, Big Tech has the power to singlehandedly reshape society and likely influenced the 2020 presidential election’s outcome. Big Tech suppressed conservative media on their platforms, including The New American.
What is Section 230?
Why is Big Tech getting away with this? An important reason is Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA). This provision gives website providers legal immunity for any obscene content posted by their users. It does so by treating these providers as “neutral public forums” as opposed to a “publisher or speaker.”
At least since the 1959 Smith v. California Supreme Court decision, book stores, libraries, and similar providers were not liable for obscene content they distributed since they were not considered publishers. Upon the growth of the internet, this rule was initially implemented until 1995 when a federal judge ruled that the website Prodigy was liable for its content since it had a policy of removing obscene content, thus acting as a publisher. In response, Congress passed the CDA, allowing platforms to moderate content they considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
Big Tech companies have used Section 230 – described “as a giant government subsidy” – to justify political and religious censorship of those expressing conservative viewpoints. This stems from both problems in the law’s text and Big Tech companies not applying it fairly. For example, as quoted above, subsection c-2 of Section 230 allows Big Tech companies to remove “otherwise objectionable” content. While federal courts have ruled the wording does not justify political censorship, it is vague enough that Big Tech companies have abused it anyhow.
Additionally, Section 230 treats Big Tech companies as public forums in exchange for immunity. However, these companies instead act as publishers when they censor content for political reasons, thus making their actions inconsistent with the law. Big Tech itself has realized this inconsistency. For example, despite publicly claiming to be platforms, both Facebook and Google have admitted in court that they are actually publishers.
The view that Big Tech companies have abused Section 230 is strengthened by an October 13, 2020, opinion by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in which he argued that “[c]ourts have also departed from the most natural reading of the text” by interpreting the provision too broadly for Big Tech companies.
Taking Action
Growing momentum exists to clarify, amend, or repeal Section 230. Members of Congress introduced several bills in the 116th Congress that would have done just that. It is important that, in the 117th Congress, they reintroduce legislation to repeal Section 230 or strip protections from Big Tech companies that engage in political censorship. Regardless of the specifics of their proposals, they must not mandate government-compelled speech upon Big Tech companies. Instead, they should simply withdraw favors previously granted by the federal government if those companies continue engaging in political censorship.
The Trump administration acted to counter Big Tech censorship and modify Section 230. This included an executive order in May 2020, revising Section 230’s interpretation to clarify that only neutral platforms would receive legal immunity, something the Commerce and Justice Departments began implementing but which the FCC rejected. The DOJ submitted a related legislative proposal to Congress and subsequently called for changing Section 230. President Trump successfully nominated Big Tech critic Nathan Simington to the FCC, rejecting pro-Section 230 Commissioner Mike O’Reilly. Among other actions, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google in October 2020, the first such action in decades, and the president vetoed the NDAA for not including a Section 230 repeal measure. Trump also vocally advocated for Section 230’s repeal.
The Biden administration, however, is friendly toward Big Tech. Several members of Biden’s transition team and administration appointees have close connections to Big Tech, and Biden’s acting FTC chairwoman was a vocal defender of Section 230. In fact, the only actions the Left and globalists want to take against Big Tech is further restricting so-called “hate speech” on their platforms. Biden also undid several of Trump’s Big Tech-related executive actions, including reversing the order to revise Section 230’s interpretation.
The Trade Conundrum
These actions – particularly the bills proposed in Congress – face an uphill battle, not only because of Big Tech and establishment opposition, but also from international trade agreements that restrict U.S. sovereignty and Congress’s ability to act.
For example, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) includes a provision similar to Section 230, except that it is broader and vaguer, giving Big Tech even more leeway in censoring conservatives. A 2019 trade agreement between the U.S. and Japan had a similar provision. This is not new: special interests have long taken advantage of sovereignty-inhibiting international agreements to get their way on policy when national legislatures refuse to act. While the USMCA might not prevent every Section 230 proposal, it does complicate reform efforts in addition to threatening national sovereignty.
Our God-given liberties are too important to relinquish, whether to government or Big Tech. We must continue the fight to preserve them. Big Tech censorship poses a serious threat to those liberties, particularly the inalienable freedoms of speech and expression.
Urge Congress to put an end to this by reforming or repealing Section 230. Urge them to support and pass legislation to repeal government-imposed protections on Big Tech companies that engage in political censorship. Also urge the president to oppose Big Tech censorship. Additionally, urge both Congress and the president to reject all “trade agreements” and other treaties that threaten national sovereignty, including the USMCA. Above all, urge them all to abide by the Constitution when making policy on Big Tech, as with every other policy matter.
Although we provide a way to easily email legislators (blue box), we know from long experience that it takes a lot more interaction with your legislators to get your point across than that provided by emails alone.
That's why we provide an easy way not only to email them, but to contact them by phone, tweet, and even video message them.
