Re:Judge rules White House pressured social networks to “sup...
by snowwrestler on Thursday July 06, 2023 @02:10PM
(#36620324)
Come on, none of the people involved in this case had the power to “yank” Section 230. I feel like you don’t have a solid handle on how government actually works, which is hampering this discussion.
We know from the Twitter document dumps that government officials on both sides of the aisle have been demanding that speech (and speakers) critical of them, their preferred policies and/or their political party be censored.
> intimidation requires an actual threat
Threatening to yank section 230 of the Communications Decency Act if platforms don't ramp up their censorship is an actual threat.
> You may have never heard of it, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is the legal backbone of the internet. The law was created almost 30 years ago to protect internet platforms from liability for many of the things third parties say or do on them.
Decades later, it’s never been more controversial. People from both political parties and all three branches of government have threatened to reform or even repeal it.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28/21273241/section-230-ex...