The legislation states, "This section shall have no force or effect after December 31, 2025." In a May 12 Wall Street Journal op-ed, McMorris-Rodgers and Pallone instead propose creating an emergency that threatens to break the internet: "Big Tech [has] a choice: Work with Congress to ensure the internet is a safe, healthy place for good, or lose Section 230 protections entirely." 1 And if an alternative could not be agreed upon by Congress, millions of websites, e-commerce stores, and other interactive computer services would be held liable for their user networks.
The protection Section 230 provides from a swarm of trial lawyers filing grievance lawsuits looking to squeeze dollars out of social media platforms is essential to a functioning interactive internet.
The removal of Section 230 protections would force a review of every post on every website, resulting in the entire internet system we know breaking under the threat of civil litigation.
Many conservatives, including this one, have been concerned about shadow banning and other efforts to inhibit the distribution of information by interactive internet companies.
Federal officials seeking to intimidate social media companies into censoring speech that they cannot due to the First Amendment to the Constitution are the problem Congress should address.
To completely dismantle the way internet interactivity works in an attempt to extort unnamed changes from social media companies is both foolish and dangerous.
Congress should reject the Section 230 Sunset Act as little more than dangerous pot stirring that doesn't bother to put forward any answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment