thelibertydaily--2020-12-30--What Is Section 230 and Why Do Trump and His Allies Want to Repeal It?

In 2020 , many of us have become accustomed to terms and concepts we never thought we ’ d be discussing : “ social distancing , ” mask requirements , and Zoom parties all come to mind .
We can add Section 230 to that list , an obscure provision of the Communications and Decency Act ( 1996 ) that was previously unknown to most .
Section 230 is a frequent target of President Trump ’ s ire , and as such it can now frequently be found trending on Twitter , being debated in Congress , and featured in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , dozens of bills to repeal or modify Section 230 have been introduced in 2020 .
But while it is a recurring topic of discussion , it seems the incessant chatter has only left Americans more confused .
This explainer is here to break down the code and the debate swirling around it .
So what ’ s the truth about Section 230 ?
What does it actually say and what are its implications ?
Fortunately , the original author of the bill , Senator Ron Wyden , is still around and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dispute : It can seem complicated , but it ’ s actually fairly straightforward .
Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write , not the private companies whose websites host the commenters .
Secondly , it affirms what the First Amendment already implies — that private companies don ’ t have to host speech that violates their values .
Section 230 was written early on in the internet age , long before social media companies even existed ( although much of this debate has focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the authors explicitly say the law is “ to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services.
” And it has been successful .
The government got out of the way and the internet expanded rapidly .
Private companies invested millions to build their online enterprises , encouraged by provisions like Section 230 that secured their rights against unjust legal charges that would have otherwise put those investments in severe jeopardy .
Online companies want and need internet users to interact with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platforms .
That goes for publishers ( like Vox.com and us here at FEE.org ) , platforms ( like Twitter and YouTube ) , and everything in between .
But they shouldn ’ t be held liable because someone writes something untrue on their pages , nor should they have to host content that they find offensive .
Ronald Reagan once said , “ We must reject the idea that every time a law ’ s broken , society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker .
It is time to restore the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his actions.
” Individuals should be held accountable when they break the law or violate the rights of others .
But it would be morally wrong to hold society at large , or even parts of society like private businesses , responsible for the action of an autonomous individual .
In fact , this course of action would let the party actually responsible for harm off the hook while punishing a third party who did nothing wrong .
Shoshana Weissmann , the head of Digital Media and Fellow at the R Street Institute @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hilarious ) article illustrating this concept — tying Section 230 ’ s protections to Jeffrey Toobin ’ s Zoom “ reveal ” earlier this year .
For those who ’ ve forgotten , Toobin accidentally exposed himself on a work Zoom call .
As Weissmann points out , without Section 230 , Zoom itself would have been liable for his lewd content rather than Toobin being held responsible .
Thankfully , we have Section 230 which creates a just and sensible legal apparatus for the internet and conduct on it .
Without this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the internet would have taken off and grown to its current state , much less produced the social media websites , online news outlets , and other user-reviewed services ( like Yelp ) we all now enjoy .
What Do Both Sides Want to Do About It ?
Section 230 became a hot topic in the fall of 2019 when President Donald Trump drafted an executive order requiring the Federal Communications Commission to develop rules that would limit its protections .
Ultimately , that order never went through , as even the mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarm by regulators , legal experts , and First Amendment advocates .
The storm died down until May of this year when Twitter found itself in Trump ’ s crosshairs after slapping one of his tweets with a violence warning .
This feud reignited Trump ’ s fury and determination to do away with Section 230 .
Since then , Trump and his allies have regularly called for the repeal of Section 230 .
Trump believes that social media companies are unfair to him and his agenda , and his response to that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the private companies to act in a way he deems appropriate .
He also believes that doing away with Section 230 would block social media companies from “ censoring ” information on their websites .
There has , of course , been pushback against all this .
Many conservatives and libertarians have pointed out that Trump and his supporters fundamentally misunderstand the legal code and its implications .
Supporters of Section 230 say it upholds the right to free speech in the age of the internet , and that it protects the free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Republican Senator Roger Wicker have called for modifications to the law that would leave the liability shield in place , but that would force companies to host content that may violate their values .
Social media companies , who have incurred the bulk of the derision in this debate , are left between a rock and a hard place .
Democratic leaders want them to censor more and guard against “ fake news , ” while some Republicans want to take away their rights for any content moderation .
True defenders of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the free market are largely being drowned out by the tidal wave of politicians and their supporters pushing for big government responses to a societal issue they dislike .
What Would Happen If It Was Repealed ?
While opponents of Section 230 think that its removal would force companies to host their content and not “ censor ” information the company does not like , it would , in fact , have the opposite effect .
If companies were liable for content posted on their pages by third parties , they would instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve already seen a preview of what this would look like with the passage of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act ( FOSTRA ) .
Signed into law in April of 2018 , FOSTRA carved out an exception to Section 230 that essentially said websites would be held responsible for content promoting or facilitating sex trafficking or prostitution .
Internet companies reacted quickly , even those whose primary purpose had nothing to do with sex work .
Craigslist removed its personals section altogether .
Reddit and Google also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Notably , these actions were not taken because these sections of their websites promoted prostitution , but rather because policing them against the possibility that someone else might advertise illegal services was an impossible task .
It is almost inevitable that further eroding Section 230 would have similar impacts throughout the internet .
Consider , for example , a company like Twitter .
If it could potentially be sued for the millions of user posts on its platform , it would have to start censoring many more of them , or even running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would likely slow down the flow of information on these channels as the companies would be forced to sort through and approve content .
Ultimately , these actions would result in all of us having less of a public square , fewer information streams , and a less rich internet experience .
Especially concerning is the impact these actions would have on smaller companies and start-ups , many of whom can not afford losing liability protections .
Ironically , those who seek to harm Facebook or Twitter by repealing this law would actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by putting their competitors out of business .
Take Parler for example .
It is a growing , popular competitor of Twitter ’ s that many conservatives are flocking to .
Should Section 230 be repealed , this new company would almost certainly be put out of business tomorrow as it does not yet have the revenue to withstand litigation .
Twitter , on the other hand , would have the resources to survive and adapt .
To quote an open letter to Congress from a coalition of conservative and libertarian think orgs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Enterprise Institute , Freedomworks , and more : What If It Was Modified ?
Some bills seek to modify Section 230 instead of repealing it .
There are too many to name in one article , so we ’ ll focus on the worst and the most prominent : Senator Josh Hawley ’ s “ Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.
” This legislation would remove liability protections for companies with more than 30 million US users , 300 million global users , or $ 500 million in annual revenue .
The bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apply for immunity from the bill if they go through a process that allows the FTC to screen their protocols and attest that their algorithms and content removal policies do not discriminate on the basis of political views .
So Hawley wants to fight “ censorship ” with — wait for it — actual government censorship of private companies .
Real censorship almost always involves the government , because without this tool of force , it is unlikely information could be totally suppressed .
While people like to call social media content moderation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t , not in the true sense of the word .
Those who have their posts removed from one platform can easily go post them elsewhere .
But what Hawley wants to do , which is use the government to censor the protocols of private companies , actually does constitute censorship as it would force them to allow the government to dictate what speech they would ( or would not ) host on their websites .
The notion that it would ever be wise to give the government this kind of power is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s easy to see how this system would quickly eviscerate our fundamental rights to free speech by allowing the government to determine what belongs in the public square of discourse .
And , it ’ s important to remember that Biden appointees will soon be running these departments .
This is an important reminder that the government bureaucrats who decide what counts as “ neutral ” will not be picked by your team forever .
It would be prudent to stop giving the government more power that will only one day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ team ” is no longer in charge .
What ’ s next ?
Will they call to nationalize these platforms ?
This approach is antithetical to the ideals of limited government , free markets , and free speech .
“ This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice : either host reprehensible , but First Amendment protected speech , or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism , ” said Michael Beckerman , president and CEO of the Internet Association.
“ That shouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many seem to think that Section 230 makes a distinction between ideological publishers and neutral platforms , and that companies who act as publishers do not enjoy its protections , this isn ’ t true .
Section 230 applies to all internet companies and makes no such distinction between publishers and platforms .
Section ( c. ) of Section 230 specifically addresses this point and speaks to the protection of companies who block and screen offensive material .
It immediately states that “ no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of any information provided by another information content provider.
” It goes on to say that when it comes to matters of civil liability , “ no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene , lews , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing , or otherwise objectionable , whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
” Publishers can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as they can be sued for it in print .
So can Twitter or Facebook , if they issue a statement or a post .
But that isn ’ t a relevant scenario to Section 230 , which again , merely maintains websites are not liable for content you may choose to write on their pages .
Removing content they find offensive is well within their First Amendment rights , and within their Section 230 rights .
It doesn ’ t change their status as a company or their protections under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 230 have hung their cases on the “ publisher vs. platform ” argument in an attempt to mislead their followers .
But the good news is , Section 230 is relatively short .
You can literally read it in less than five minutes for yourself and see that the publisher vs. platform discussion is a non-issue .
There are also those who claim that Section 230 is a special protection or an exemption for social media companies .
This argument also fails to hold water .
One of the few , legitimate functions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of individuals .
When that is done , businesses have a secure and just climate to operate within .
That is exactly what Section 230 did .
When the internet came about , it opened up an entirely new marketplace and one that needed such rights affirmed in order for people to invest in it .
Section 230 merely applied the same types of laws we see in the tangible world to the online marketplace .
Would Burger King be liable if you came in and shouted obscenities at their customers ?
Should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their premises and allow your attack on their clients to continue ?
Of course not .
The same rules should apply to an internet company , and thanks to Section 230 they do .
Furthermore , without this provision to protect an online free market , the courts would likely be bogged down with frivolous lawsuits , which would cost taxpayers dearly .
Even sorting through and throwing out such suits is an expensive and time-consuming process .
The Right Way to Handle Social Media Bias On this issue , those who believe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put their principles over short-term political expediency .
Individuals , whether acting alone or jointly through a business , have the right to free speech , meaning the government has no right to tell them what they can or can not say .
While we may disagree with their choices to remove some users or throttle access to certain content ( and I do ) , it would be a violation of their fundamental rights to force them to host speech they disagree with .
This argument is akin to one that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ago : The Christian baker , Jack Phillips , who famously refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding citing his free speech rights .
Just as the baker had a First Amendment right to not endorse a message that violated his beliefs , so too do the owners of social media companies .
If we dislike the ways in which they run their platforms , the proper solution is for us to create or fund their competitors — not use big government as a weapon to tread on them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ market .
We don ’ t need the federal government to get involved in this picture outside of creating a fair legal apparatus in which companies can flourish .
With Section 230 they got this right , and consumers now enjoy a wide range of options online thanks to its provisions .
If users are unhappy with Twitter or Facebook , they can take their business elsewhere and vote with their feet .
If enough users do that , Twitter and Facebook will willingly change their policies to attract users back , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have noted that the network effect makes it difficult for social media competitors to attract new customers , referring to the fact that for some products users find more enjoyment in them when a large number of their peers partake in the experience .
But MySpace used to have the network effect advantage , and it still lost out to upstart competitors .
And the recent ( and impressive ) success of Parler shows that there is still room for competition in this picture .
As always , free people are far better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government .
Hannah Cox is a libertarian-conservative writer , commentator , and activist .
She ’ s a Newsmax Insider and a Contributor to The Washington Examiner .

In 2020, many of us have become accustomed to terms and concepts we never thought we’d be discussing: “social distancing,” mask requirements, and Zoom parties all come to mind.
We can add Section 230 to that list, an obscure provision of the Communications and Decency Act (1996) that was previously unknown to most.
Section 230 is a frequent target of President Trump’s ire, and as such it can now frequently be found trending on Twitter, being debated in Congress, and featured in primetime media coverage. All in all, dozens of bills to repeal or modify Section 230 have been introduced in 2020.
TechDirt journalist Mike Masnick writes,
If you were in a coma for the past 12 months, just came out of it, and had to figure out what had happened in the last year or so solely based on new bills introduced in Congress, you would likely come to the conclusion that Section 230 was the world’s greatest priority and the biggest, most pressing issue in the entire freaking universe.
But while it is a recurring topic of discussion, it seems the incessant chatter has only left Americans more confused. This explainer is here to break down the code and the debate swirling around it.
What is Section 230?
So what’s the truth about Section 230? What does it actually say and what are its implications? Fortunately, the original author of the bill, Senator Ron Wyden, is still around and on record when it comes to the current dispute:
Republican Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote Section 230 in 1996 to give up-and-coming tech companies a sword and a shield, and to foster free speech and innovation online. Essentially, 230 says that users, not the website that hosts their content, are the ones responsible for what they post, whether on Facebook or in the comments section of a news article. That’s what I call the shield. But it also gave companies a sword so that they can take down offensive content, lies and slime — the stuff that may be protected by the First Amendment but that most people do not want to experience online. And so they are free to take down white supremacist content or flag tweets that glorify violence (as Twitter did with President Trump’s recent tweet) without fear of being sued for bias or even of having their site shut down. Section 230 gives the executive branch no leeway to do either.
It can seem complicated, but it’s actually fairly straightforward. Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters. Secondly, it affirms what the First Amendment already implies — that private companies don’t have to host speech that violates their values.
Section 230 was written early on in the internet age, long before social media companies even existed (although much of this debate has focused on those platforms). Within the bill, the authors explicitly say the law is “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services.”
And it has been successful. The government got out of the way and the internet expanded rapidly. Private companies invested millions to build their online enterprises, encouraged by provisions like Section 230 that secured their rights against unjust legal charges that would have otherwise put those investments in severe jeopardy.
Section 230 simply says that only internet users are responsible for what they write, not the private companies whose websites host the commenters.
Online companies want and need internet users to interact with their content and share feedback on their platforms. That goes for publishers (like Vox.com and us here at FEE.org), platforms (like Twitter and YouTube), and everything in between. But they shouldn’t be held liable because someone writes something untrue on their pages, nor should they have to host content that they find offensive.
Ronald Reagan once said,“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
Individuals should be held accountable when they break the law or violate the rights of others. But it would be morally wrong to hold society at large, or even parts of society like private businesses, responsible for the action of an autonomous individual. In fact, this course of action would let the party actually responsible for harm off the hook while punishing a third party who did nothing wrong.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Shoshana Weissmann, the head of Digital Media and Fellow at the R Street Institute, recently wrote a punchy (and hilarious) article illustrating this concept — tying Section 230’s protections to Jeffrey Toobin’s Zoom “reveal” earlier this year. For those who’ve forgotten, Toobin accidentally exposed himself on a work Zoom call. As Weissmann points out, without Section 230, Zoom itself would have been liable for his lewd content rather than Toobin being held responsible.
https://twitter.com/senatorshoshana/status/1318663665353150466
Thankfully, we have Section 230 which creates a just and sensible legal apparatus for the internet and conduct on it. Without this protection, it is highly unlikely that the internet would have taken off and grown to its current state, much less produced the social media websites, online news outlets, and other user-reviewed services (like Yelp) we all now enjoy.
REPEAL SECTION 230!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 6, 2020
Yep. It’s pretty simple: if @Twitter and @Google and the rest are going to editorialize and censor and act like traditional publishers, they should be treated like traditional publishers and stop receiving the special carve out from the federal government in Section 230 https://t.co/qKPE97zG87 — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) May 27, 2020
I support President @realDonaldTrump's insistence Section 230 repeal be part of the defense authorization bill. Big Tech is the only industry in America that cannot be sued for their business practices and are not meaningfully regulated. This must come to an end. — Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) December 4, 2020
What Do Both Sides Want to Do About It?
Section 230 became a hot topic in the fall of 2019 when President Donald Trump drafted an executive order requiring the Federal Communications Commission to develop rules that would limit its protections. Ultimately, that order never went through, as even the mention of it was met with confusion and alarm by regulators, legal experts, and First Amendment advocates.
The storm died down until May of this year when Twitter found itself in Trump’s crosshairs after slapping one of his tweets with a violence warning. This feud reignited Trump’s fury and determination to do away with Section 230.
Since then, Trump and his allies have regularly called for the repeal of Section 230. Trump believes that social media companies are unfair to him and his agenda, and his response to that is to use the government to force the private companies to act in a way he deems appropriate. He also believes that doing away with Section 230 would block social media companies from “censoring” information on their websites.
There has, of course, been pushback against all this. Many conservatives and libertarians have pointed out that Trump and his supporters fundamentally misunderstand the legal code and its implications. Supporters of Section 230 say it upholds the right to free speech in the age of the internet, and that it protects the free market as well.
As so often happens, the title of a bill communicates the opposite of the intent. Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” would empower internet censorship, all from the government, according to vague definitions and standards. What could go wrong? — David French (@DavidAFrench) June 19, 2019
False. Section 230 applies to everyone on the internet, including traditional media, The Trump Organization, him, you, and me. In fact, it became law before most social media existed. It promotes the freedom of speech by ensuring you’re not liable for things *other* people say. https://t.co/KH2POJc4np — Justin Amash (@justinamash) December 2, 2020
Meanwhile, others like Republican Senator Roger Wicker have called for modifications to the law that would leave the liability shield in place, but that would force companies to host content that may violate their values.
Social media companies, who have incurred the bulk of the derision in this debate, are left between a rock and a hard place. Democratic leaders want them to censor more and guard against “fake news,” while some Republicans want to take away their rights for any content moderation.
True defenders of free speech, limited government, and the free market are largely being drowned out by the tidal wave of politicians and their supporters pushing for big government responses to a societal issue they dislike.
What Would Happen If It Was Repealed?
While opponents of Section 230 think that its removal would force companies to host their content and not “censor” information the company does not like, it would, in fact, have the opposite effect. If companies were liable for content posted on their pages by third parties, they would instead have to censor vigorously.
We’ve already seen a preview of what this would look like with the passage of the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTRA). Signed into law in April of 2018, FOSTRA carved out an exception to Section 230 that essentially said websites would be held responsible for content promoting or facilitating sex trafficking or prostitution.
Internet companies reacted quickly, even those whose primary purpose had nothing to do with sex work. Craigslist removed its personals section altogether. Reddit and Google also took down parts of their websites. Notably, these actions were not taken because these sections of their websites promoted prostitution, but rather because policing them against the possibility that someone else might advertise illegal services was an impossible task.
Ironically, those who seek to harm Facebook or Twitter by repealing this law would actually end up entrenching their power even more by putting their competitors out of business.
It is almost inevitable that further eroding Section 230 would have similar impacts throughout the internet. Consider, for example, a company like Twitter. If it could potentially be sued for the millions of user posts on its platform, it would have to start censoring many more of them, or even running them through a pre-approval process. This would likely slow down the flow of information on these channels as the companies would be forced to sort through and approve content. Ultimately, these actions would result in all of us having less of a public square, fewer information streams, and a less rich internet experience.
Especially concerning is the impact these actions would have on smaller companies and start-ups, many of whom cannot afford losing liability protections. Ironically, those who seek to harm Facebook or Twitter by repealing this law would actually end up entrenching their power even more by putting their competitors out of business.
Take Parler for example. It is a growing, popular competitor of Twitter’s that many conservatives are flocking to. Should Section 230 be repealed, this new company would almost certainly be put out of business tomorrow as it does not yet have the revenue to withstand litigation. Twitter, on the other hand, would have the resources to survive and adapt. To quote an open letter to Congress from a coalition of conservative and libertarian think orgs, including Americans for Prosperity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedomworks, and more:
If Section 230 were to be repealed, or even watered down, this next generation of platform will likely be thwarted by liability threats. “Big tech” firms have the resources to comply with new mandates and regulations, so erecting this barrier to entry to nascent firms will artificially lock currently dominant firms in their lead positions.
What If It Was Modified?
Some bills seek to modify Section 230 instead of repealing it. There are too many to name in one article, so we’ll focus on the worst and the most prominent: Senator Josh Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.”
This legislation would remove liability protections for companies with more than 30 million US users, 300 million global users, or $500 million in annual revenue. The bill also says that these large companies can apply for immunity from the bill if they go through a process that allows the FTC to screen their protocols and attest that their algorithms and content removal policies do not discriminate on the basis of political views.
So Hawley wants to fight “censorship” with — wait for it — actual government censorship of private companies.
It would be prudent to stop giving the government more power that will only one day be used against you when your “team” is no longer in charge.
Real censorship almost always involves the government, because without this tool of force, it is unlikely information could be totally suppressed. While people like to call social media content moderation “censorship” it really isn’t, not in the true sense of the word. Those who have their posts removed from one platform can easily go post them elsewhere. But what Hawley wants to do, which is use the government to censor the protocols of private companies, actually does constitute censorship as it would force them to allow the government to dictate what speech they would (or would not) host on their websites.
The notion that it would ever be wise to give the government this kind of power is quite jarring to encounter in America. It’s easy to see how this system would quickly eviscerate our fundamental rights to free speech by allowing the government to determine what belongs in the public square of discourse.
And, it’s important to remember that Biden appointees will soon be running these departments. This is an important reminder that the government bureaucrats who decide what counts as “neutral” will not be picked by your team forever. It would be prudent to stop giving the government more power that will only one day be used against you when your “team” is no longer in charge.
What’s next? Will they call to nationalize these platforms? This approach is antithetical to the ideals of limited government, free markets, and free speech.
“This bill forces platforms to make an impossible choice: either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism,” said Michael Beckerman, president and CEO of the Internet Association.“That shouldn’t be a trade-off.”
Myths About Section 230
While many seem to think that Section 230 makes a distinction between ideological publishers and neutral platforms, and that companies who act as publishers do not enjoy its protections, this isn’t true. Section 230 applies to all internet companies and makes no such distinction between publishers and platforms.
Section (c.) of Section 230 specifically addresses this point and speaks to the protection of companies who block and screen offensive material. It immediately states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It goes on to say that when it comes to matters of civil liability, “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lews, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
Publishers can be sued for defamatory language online, just as they can be sued for it in print. So can Twitter or Facebook, if they issue a statement or a post. But that isn’t a relevant scenario to Section 230, which again, merely maintains websites are not liable for content you may choose to write on their pages.
Removing content they find offensive is well within their First Amendment rights, and within their Section 230 rights. It doesn’t change their status as a company or their protections under the law.
Many advocates for repealing Section 230 have hung their cases on the “publisher vs. platform” argument in an attempt to mislead their followers. But the good news is, Section 230 is relatively short. You can literally read it in less than five minutes for yourself and see that the publisher vs. platform discussion is a non-issue.
One of the few, legitimate functions of government is to uphold the rights of individuals. When that is done, businesses have a secure and just climate to operate within. That is exactly what Section 230 did.
There are also those who claim that Section 230 is a special protection or an exemption for social media companies. This argument also fails to hold water.
One of the few, legitimate functions of government is to uphold the rights of individuals. When that is done, businesses have a secure and just climate to operate within. That is exactly what Section 230 did. When the internet came about, it opened up an entirely new marketplace and one that needed such rights affirmed in order for people to invest in it.
Section 230 merely applied the same types of laws we see in the tangible world to the online marketplace. Would Burger King be liable if you came in and shouted obscenities at their customers? Should they be forced to host you on their premises and allow your attack on their clients to continue? Of course not. The same rules should apply to an internet company, and thanks to Section 230 they do.
Furthermore, without this provision to protect an online free market, the courts would likely be bogged down with frivolous lawsuits, which would cost taxpayers dearly. Even sorting through and throwing out such suits is an expensive and time-consuming process.
The Right Way to Handle Social Media Bias
On this issue, those who believe in limited government and free markets need to put their principles over short-term political expediency. Individuals, whether acting alone or jointly through a business, have the right to free speech, meaning the government has no right to tell them what they can or cannot say. While we may disagree with their choices to remove some users or throttle access to certain content (and I do), it would be a violation of their fundamental rights to force them to host speech they disagree with.
This argument is akin to one that caught the attention of many conservatives years ago: The Christian baker, Jack Phillips, who famously refused to bake a custom cake for a same-sex wedding citing his free speech rights. Just as the baker had a First Amendment right to not endorse a message that violated his beliefs, so too do the owners of social media companies. If we dislike the ways in which they run their platforms, the proper solution is for us to create or fund their competitors — not use big government as a weapon to tread on them.
This is the beauty of the free market. We don’t need the federal government to get involved in this picture outside of creating a fair legal apparatus in which companies can flourish. With Section 230 they got this right, and consumers now enjoy a wide range of options online thanks to its provisions.
If users are unhappy with Twitter or Facebook, they can take their business elsewhere and vote with their feet. If enough users do that, Twitter and Facebook will willingly change their policies to attract users back, or they will cease to exist.
Some have noted that the network effect makes it difficult for social media competitors to attract new customers, referring to the fact that for some products users find more enjoyment in them when a large number of their peers partake in the experience. But MySpace used to have the network effect advantage, and it still lost out to upstart competitors. And the recent (and impressive) success of Parler shows that there is still room for competition in this picture.
As always, free people are far better equipped to solve this problem than the government.
Hannah Cox is a libertarian-conservative writer, commentator, and activist. She’s a Newsmax Insider and a Contributor to The Washington Examiner.
Originally published at FEE.org.


thelibertydaily--2020-12-30--NYPD Commish: ‘You’d Be Shocked’ At Number Of Guns On NYC Streets

It looks like 2020 is going to be the most violent year in almost two decades for New York City , with shootings up by almost 100 % and homicides 40 % higher than 2019 .
There ’ s a growing sense of lawlessness throughout the city , even in the heart of Manhattan , where scenes like the one captured below are becoming increasingly common .
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday , NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea made an interesting declaration ; the police will be putting their “ resources against attacking people , not necessarily the guns , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facing “ almost an endless supply of guns.
” “ We are making gun arrests at a breakneck pace and one could argue it is not having a significant impact on the level of violence , ” Shea said .
“ I am going to go after [ those ] who are the people pulling the trigger on the streets of New York City , that is a much more manageable number and controllable number.
” The commissioner went on to say that people “ would be shocked how many guns are on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question ; given the ease with which people are carrying illegally , why can ’ t the average New Yorker legally carry a gun ?
Why subject them to hundreds of dollars in fees and a byzantine licensing system that ’ s far more likely to deny them a permit to carry than to grant them permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights ?
I ’ m not shocked at all at the number of illicit guns in New York City , because I know how illicit markets work .
Frankly , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea for the NYPD to focus on those pulling the trigger rather than trying to arrest everyone carrying a gun without a license , but the NYPD should also be putting pressure on city officials to revise the city ’ s carry laws .
Now , I know that ’ s not likely to happen , but it ’ s still the logical next step if the NYPD is trying to focus on the most violent offenders in the city .
You can actually cut down on the illegal carrying of firearms by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ City does all that it can to discourage residents from even applying for a concealed carry license through invasive questioning , costly non-refundable fees , and a discretionary issuing process that allows the police to deny a license to someone based on subjective standards of “ suitability.
” New York City ’ s gun laws are clearly doing more to prevent law-abiding residents from exercising their Second Amendment rights than preventing criminals from accessing or using guns in the commission of violent crimes .
Dermot Shea basically admitted as much in his most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to go one step further ; acknowledge that the city ’ s gun laws have created a situation where the city ’ s criminals are better armed than the general public and work to change that .
To do anything less is simply unconscionable , and I believe unconstitutional as well

It looks like 2020 is going to be the most violent year in almost two decades for New York City, with shootings up by almost 100% and homicides 40% higher than 2019. There’s a growing sense of lawlessness throughout the city, even in the heart of Manhattan, where scenes like the one captured below are becoming increasingly common.
Witnessed a disturbing incident in broad daylight on 5th ave / 21st St in NYC today. About 50 young boys on bikes blocked 5th ave traffic & trashed an SUV, riders inside, jumping on the windshield. Car had medical license plates & a man & older woman inside. pic.twitter.com/33QeQc4ObC — Maria Petrova (@_MariaPetrova) December 30, 2020
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea made an interesting declaration; the police will be putting their “resources against attacking people, not necessarily the guns,” because Shea says the city’s facing “almost an endless supply of guns.”
“We are making gun arrests at a breakneck pace and one could argue it is not having a significant impact on the level of violence,” Shea said. “I am going to go after [those] who are the people pulling the trigger on the streets of New York City, that is a much more manageable number and controllable number.”
The commissioner went on to say that people “would be shocked how many guns are on the streets,” which begs the question; given the ease with which people are carrying illegally, why can’t the average New Yorker legally carry a gun? Why subject them to hundreds of dollars in fees and a byzantine licensing system that’s far more likely to deny them a permit to carry than to grant them permission to exercise their Second Amendment rights?
I’m not shocked at all at the number of illicit guns in New York City, because I know how illicit markets work. Frankly, I think it’s a very good idea for the NYPD to focus on those pulling the trigger rather than trying to arrest everyone carrying a gun without a license, but the NYPD should also be putting pressure on city officials to revise the city’s carry laws.
Now, I know that’s not likely to happen, but it’s still the logical next step if the NYPD is trying to focus on the most violent offenders in the city. You can actually cut down on the illegal carrying of firearms by encouraging legal carry. Unfortunately New York City does all that it can to discourage residents from even applying for a concealed carry license through invasive questioning, costly non-refundable fees, and a discretionary issuing process that allows the police to deny a license to someone based on subjective standards of “suitability.”
New York City’s gun laws are clearly doing more to prevent law-abiding residents from exercising their Second Amendment rights than preventing criminals from accessing or using guns in the commission of violent crimes. Dermot Shea basically admitted as much in his most recent press conference. It’s time to go one step further; acknowledge that the city’s gun laws have created a situation where the city’s criminals are better armed than the general public and work to change that. To do anything less is simply unconscionable, and I believe unconstitutional as well


thelibertydaily--2020-12-30--Top 5 Mask Nazis of 2020

Top 5 Mask Nazis of 2020

2020 introduced us to many new phrases .
Curbside pickup .
Zoom Happy Hour .
Peaceful protester .
But a personal favorite of mine is the mask nazi .
It 's a niche genre .
These are the masked bandits who wild out on people not being masked up in public places .
I 'm not calling them Hitler bad .
Think more the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld .
Though I 'm sure if some of the people could have you thrown into a camp , they would .
We 've had many a laugh at the expense of mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to my five favorites .
Honorable mention goes to the kid who wanted to wear a Hooters mask to the fifth grade .
Obviously , he 's not the villain in the story .
The mask nazis would be the people wanting to stifle his freedom of expression .
But I felt he deserved a shout-out .
We 'll start with this guy , who is mask nazi'ing all wrong .
He 's outdoors in the middle of nowhere .
He 's yelling at maskless hikers who are hiking in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wearing a mask himself .
Bonus douche points for trying to give others COVID .
Legs here is a more recent one .
What I like here is n't so much him being a batsh !
t crazy wackadoodle .
But because it took place in December — nine months after fifteen days to flatten the curve — no one came to his aid .
If anything , the other masked people were defending the maskless woman .
Because we 're all tired of people like this .
We go back to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was expecting someone to be wearing a mask while eating a burrito .
Words were yelled .
Coffee was thrown .
But the highlight is when the maskless burrito eater stood up and beat the crap out of the mask nazi 's boyfriend .
Who then called the cops like a little b*tch .
Karen and Kevin Throw Hot Coffee At Man For Not Wearing a Mask Please do n't think mask nazis were only in America .
Let 's travel up north to America Junior .
Home of poutine , socialized health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just wanted to get a slice of pizza .
The other guy looked like he got shoved in a locker too much as a kid .
That brings us to my favorite .
Which I guess makes it my least favorite .
Of all the mask nazis in the world , this broad is the most mask nazi'ish .
We all have internal struggles .
It helps to remember that when you confront someone who might not be in the best of moods .
Show a little grace and patience and crap like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ went wrong in this cow 's life that made her yell `` I hope you die '' in a little girl 's face .
There you have it .
In this blogger 's opinion , the top mask nazis of 2020 .
I suppose I could have thrown Anthony Fauci on the list as well .
But I wanted to stick with randos freaking out in viral videos .
Maybe we can catch him in 2021 .
I 'm sure you have a few favorites of your own .
If you think there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment on Parler !

2020 introduced us to many new phrases. Curbside pickup. Zoom Happy Hour. Peaceful protester. But a personal favorite of mine is the mask nazi. It's a niche genre. These are the masked bandits who wild out on people not being masked up in public places. I'm not calling them Hitler bad. Think more the Soup Nazi from Seinfeld. Though I'm sure if some of the people could have you thrown into a camp, they would.
We've had many a laugh at the expense of mask nazis. I've narrowed it down to my five favorites. Honorable mention goes to the kid who wanted to wear a Hooters mask to the fifth grade. Obviously, he's not the villain in the story. The mask nazis would be the people wanting to stifle his freedom of expression. But I felt he deserved a shout-out.
We'll start with this guy, who is mask nazi'ing all wrong. He's outdoors in the middle of nowhere. He's yelling at maskless hikers who are hiking in the middle of nowhere. Also, he's not wearing a mask himself. Bonus douche points for trying to give others COVID.
“I have COVID," this man in Ashburnham says as he spits in the direction of two women taking a hike Sunday afternoon. Based on a verbal confrontation early in the video, he was upset the women were not wearing a mask while hiking. Now police are looking for him. #WBZpic.twitter.com/kLR9dcPd6W
— Kristina Rex (@KristinaRex) November 20, 2020
Legs here is a more recent one. What I like here isn't so much him being a batsh!t crazy wackadoodle. But because it took place in December — nine months after fifteen days to flatten the curve — no one came to his aid. If anything, the other masked people were defending the maskless woman. Because we're all tired of people like this.
What is wrong with people?
pic.twitter.com/W8yY7z0sbo
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 15, 2020
We go back to the great outdoors, where a mask nazi was expecting someone to be wearing a mask while eating a burrito. Words were yelled. Coffee was thrown. But the highlight is when the maskless burrito eater stood up and beat the crap out of the mask nazi's boyfriend. Who then called the cops like a little b*tch.
Karen and Kevin Throw Hot Coffee At Man For Not Wearing a Mask youtu.be
Please don't think mask nazis were only in America. Let's travel up north to America Junior. Home of poutine, socialized health care, and Pantelis. One guy just wanted to get a slice of pizza. The other guy looked like he got shoved in a locker too much as a kid.
A Toronto man destroyed a pizza display because another customer was not wearing a mask 😱-📹 u/RxdditRoamxr #Toronto#COVIDIOT#COVID19Ontariopic.twitter.com/4ks86Lbh35
— blogTO (@blogTO) July 31, 2020
That brings us to my favorite. Which I guess makes it my least favorite. Of all the mask nazis in the world, this broad is the most mask nazi'ish. We all have internal struggles. It helps to remember that when you confront someone who might not be in the best of moods. Show a little grace and patience and crap like that. Though I do wonder what went wrong in this cow's life that made her yell "I hope you die" in a little girl's face.
This woman literally looks into these children's eyes and says, “I hope you all die."
I'm at a loss for words.🥺 pic.twitter.com/gOw1bbSX1Z
— sally (@sallyKP) July 28, 2020
There you have it. In this blogger's opinion, the top mask nazis of 2020. I suppose I could have thrown Anthony Fauci on the list as well. But I wanted to stick with randos freaking out in viral videos. Maybe we can catch him in 2021.
I'm sure you have a few favorites of your own. If you think there's one I missed, leave a comment on Parler!


thelibertydaily--2020-12-30--DC Snobs Are Buying Custom-Stocked Bookshelves to Look Sophisticated on TV and Zoom

Washington , D.C. , snobs are purchasing custom-stocked bookshelves to appear smart and sophisticated on television , in Zoom meetings , and in other scenarios .
According to Politico , multiple services , such as “ Books by the Foot ” by a Maryland bookseller , use their warehouses of books to create literary scenery in various locations .
Customers range from interior decorators and hotels to collectors , politicians , celebrities , and talking heads .
Demand for these confidence- and ego-boosting bookshelves grew this year , Politico reports , as more people began conducting meetings and TV hits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restrictions .
While book orders for personal reading pleasure were also up during the pandemic , demand clearly increased for a certain type of bookshelf order .
“ We can sort of , you know , guess , or read between the lines , and we ’ ve had an uptick in smaller quantities , ” “ Books by the Foot ” owner Chuck Roberts said .
“ If your typical bookcase is 3 feet wide , and you just want to have the background from your shoulders up , then you might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feet of literature .
That way , you put them on your home set … [ and ] nobody can zoom in on these books and say , Oh my God , he ’ s reading … you know , something offensive , or tacky .
Nothing embarrassing.
” Others have noted the narcissistic facade that these bookcases present for people who feel they need to maintain a certain image even over Zoom .
“ It ’ s self-obsession — but also , stuck at home and just looking for that validation online @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Steve Krakauer said .
“ Who on Twitter is going to say that your Zoom backdrop was the best ?
” Krakauer also noted that people have begun to focus on Twitter pages dedicated to rating pundits ’ backdrops during their TV hits , as talking heads hope to land a decent score .
“ It ’ s a sad state , but this is the media in 2020 , ” he continued .
“ All they ’ re looking for is their Twitter mentions and trying to get a nice little @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Washington, D.C., snobs are purchasing custom-stocked bookshelves to appear smart and sophisticated on television, in Zoom meetings, and in other scenarios.
According to Politico, multiple services, such as “Books by the Foot” by a Maryland bookseller, use their warehouses of books to create literary scenery in various locations. Customers range from interior decorators and hotels to collectors, politicians, celebrities, and talking heads.
Demand for these confidence- and ego-boosting bookshelves grew this year, Politico reports, as more people began conducting meetings and TV hits through teleconferencing due to COVID-19 and government restrictions.
While book orders for personal reading pleasure were also up during the pandemic, demand clearly increased for a certain type of bookshelf order.
“We can sort of, you know, guess, or read between the lines, and we’ve had an uptick in smaller quantities,” “Books by the Foot” owner Chuck Roberts said. “If your typical bookcase is 3 feet wide, and you just want to have the background from your shoulders up, then you might order 9 feet of history or 9 feet of literature. That way, you put them on your home set … [and] nobody can zoom in on these books and say, Oh my God, he’s reading … you know, something offensive, or tacky. Nothing embarrassing.”
Others have noted the narcissistic facade that these bookcases present for people who feel they need to maintain a certain image even over Zoom.
“It’s self-obsession — but also, stuck at home and just looking for that validation online,” author of “Fourth Watch” Steve Krakauer said. “Who on Twitter is going to say that your Zoom backdrop was the best?”
“It is pure vanity,” he added.
Krakauer also noted that people have begun to focus on Twitter pages dedicated to rating pundits’ backdrops during their TV hits, as talking heads hope to land a decent score.
“It’s a sad state, but this is the media in 2020,” he continued. “All they’re looking for is their Twitter mentions and trying to get a nice little shout-out from the room-rater account.”
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


thelibertydaily--2020-12-30--How Repealing Section 230 Could Backfire

Charlotte , NC — The push to eliminate Section 230 has gained a lot of attention in recent days .
President Donald Trump has openly called for the elimination of this section of the Communications Decency Act .
He repeated that call on Tuesday as he called for Republicans to get tough .
Of course , Trump was frustrated that McConnell blocked his checks .
We also know that McConnell immediately introduced legislation that tied the increased payments to an investigation into election fraud and the repeal of Section 230 .
So what is the big deal about Section 230 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
Conservatives have latched onto this section as they want to hold social media giants accountable for the censoring and removal of posts .
Twitter has openly declared war on President Trump ’ s tweets , labeling nearly every one of them as misinformation anymore .
They have removed tweets and locked accounts that shared information , like the NY Post and the Hunter Biden story .
Conservatives argue that social media and tech giants are not equally applying the law to everyone and specifically targeting conservatives .
That argument seems logical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media giants take against conservatives .
Even considering that , there is a consideration for Section 230 that must be given as it does provide protections for conservative media outlets as well .
You can read the full text of Section 230 here , but the concern specifically revolves around part C of the law .
In this area , it states : ( c ) Protection for “ Good Samaritan ” blocking and screening of offensive material ( 1 ) Treatment of publisher or speaker No provider or user of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider .
( 2 ) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— ( A ) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , harassing , or otherwise objectionable , whether or not such material is constitutionally protected ; or ( B ) any action @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph .
The law provides protections from companies that allow posts on their websites .
For example , you can comment on this article below , but The Liberty Loft is not liable for the statements you make .
It gives protection to anyone that has a website , a social media platform , etc .
The real issue comes down to section 2 .
Conservatives have argued against the removal of posts and restriction of content based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of obscene , lewd , lascivious , filthy , excessively violent , and harassing are pretty self-explanatory .
All the questionable content would fall in the subject of “ otherwise objectionable ” which leaves much up to the imagination .
Some , like Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-Mo ) , have suggested more government oversight .
If you are a conservative , you have to cringe when you hear these words which are suggestive of government regulation and big government control .
That does not seem like a logical solution .
Section 230 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social media , and it seems likely that it should be revisited given the new nature of how information is shared online .
Much has changed in how people interact online since 1996 .
Information is spread much quicker and in many more areas .
It seems more likely to me that the government should not be arguing for a full repeal of Section 230 , but rather the elimination of the “ otherwise objectionable ” verbiage .
To eliminate Section 230 entirely would create an absolute nightmare scenario .
We are talking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tech and social media , but anyone that has a website that distributes information .
Conservatives and liberals alike would suffer at the elimination of the entire section .
The part about what is objectionable could easily be removed and allow for the liability for removing things that someone simply does not like , in favor of free speech .
As an example , you could make conservative comments anywhere you wanted , but unless those were excessively violent , harassing , obscene , or filthy , they would not be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 230 , we have to talk about it in a much bigger picture .
If we simply eliminate it , it would rapidly eliminate conservative speech online .
Conservative news outlets , like ours , would not be able to compete with the large media organizations as the liability suits would close everyone very quickly .
It would be devastating for the sharing of information freely online .
The only two options that there are is to look at the “ otherwise objectionable ” clause to see if it needs to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such as Parler , Rumble , MeWe , or any of the others that have been developed in recent years .
Moving does not come without its challenges .
Many businesses thrive off their social interactions on Facebook , Twitter , and others .
It would definitely take some time , development , and investment to get these platforms to a competitive nature with the big tech companies .
Fortunately , we have options to leave them all , which may be the best option to save the liability protections that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Editor-in-Chief at The Liberty Loft and host of The Jared Dyson Show .
Be sure to subscribe to The Liberty Loft ’ s daily newsletter .
If you enjoy our content , please consider donating to support The Liberty Loft so we can continue to deliver great content .
Subscribe to The Jared Dyson Show on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , TuneIn , Pandora , or iHeart Radio .

Charlotte, NC — The push to eliminate Section 230 has gained a lot of attention in recent days. President Donald Trump has openly called for the elimination of this section of the Communications Decency Act. He repeated that call on Tuesday as he called for Republicans to get tough.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1343998076084748288?s=20
Of course, Trump was frustrated that McConnell blocked his checks. We also know that McConnell immediately introduced legislation that tied the increased payments to an investigation into election fraud and the repeal of Section 230.
So what is the big deal about Section 230? Why is everyone so focused on it?
Conservatives have latched onto this section as they want to hold social media giants accountable for the censoring and removal of posts. Twitter has openly declared war on President Trump’s tweets, labeling nearly every one of them as misinformation anymore. They have removed tweets and locked accounts that shared information, like the NY Post and the Hunter Biden story.
Conservatives argue that social media and tech giants are not equally applying the law to everyone and specifically targeting conservatives. That argument seems logical given the actions that these tech and social media giants take against conservatives. Even considering that, there is a consideration for Section 230 that must be given as it does provide protections for conservative media outlets as well.
You can read the full text of Section 230 here, but the concern specifically revolves around part C of the law. In this area, it states:
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph.
The law provides protections from companies that allow posts on their websites. For example, you can comment on this article below, but The Liberty Loft is not liable for the statements you make. It gives protection to anyone that has a website, a social media platform, etc. The real issue comes down to section 2.
Conservatives have argued against the removal of posts and restriction of content based on their political views. The topics of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, and harassing are pretty self-explanatory. All the questionable content would fall in the subject of “otherwise objectionable” which leaves much up to the imagination.
Some, like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo), have suggested more government oversight. If you are a conservative, you have to cringe when you hear these words which are suggestive of government regulation and big government control. That does not seem like a logical solution.
Section 230 was written long before the age of social media, and it seems likely that it should be revisited given the new nature of how information is shared online. Much has changed in how people interact online since 1996. Information is spread much quicker and in many more areas.
It seems more likely to me that the government should not be arguing for a full repeal of Section 230, but rather the elimination of the “otherwise objectionable” verbiage. To eliminate Section 230 entirely would create an absolute nightmare scenario. We are talking about increased liabilities on not just big tech and social media, but anyone that has a website that distributes information.
Conservatives and liberals alike would suffer at the elimination of the entire section. The part about what is objectionable could easily be removed and allow for the liability for removing things that someone simply does not like, in favor of free speech. As an example, you could make conservative comments anywhere you wanted, but unless those were excessively violent, harassing, obscene, or filthy, they would not be able to be removed.
When we talk about Section 230, we have to talk about it in a much bigger picture. If we simply eliminate it, it would rapidly eliminate conservative speech online. Conservative news outlets, like ours, would not be able to compete with the large media organizations as the liability suits would close everyone very quickly. It would be devastating for the sharing of information freely online.
The only two options that there are is to look at the “otherwise objectionable” clause to see if it needs to be removed or to start looking at alternatives, such as Parler, Rumble, MeWe, or any of the others that have been developed in recent years. Moving does not come without its challenges. Many businesses thrive off their social interactions on Facebook, Twitter, and others.
It would definitely take some time, development, and investment to get these platforms to a competitive nature with the big tech companies. Fortunately, we have options to leave them all, which may be the best option to save the liability protections that we all enjoy online.
https://directory.libsyn.com/episode/index/id/17363438
JD Washington is the Editor-in-Chief at The Liberty Loft and host of The JD Washington Show. Be sure to subscribe to The Liberty Loft’s daily newsletter. If you enjoy our content, please consider donating to support The Liberty Loft so we can continue to deliver great content.


thelibertydaily--2020-12-30--Anyone Who Reads John Lott’s Research Paper and Still Denies Voter Fraud Is a Fool

Americans have been conned .
We are still being conned .
This is , in fact , the biggest con-job perpetrated against the masses since WMDs were used as the predicate for permanent Middle East wars .
The only reason that con-job was technically bigger is because it fooled more people .
This one only seems to be fooling about half of the country .
But its effects may end up being even bigger as a corrupt , controlled puppet of the Chinese Communist Party is poised to become the leader of the free world .
An academic analysis and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researcher may be the clearest indication that massive voter fraud took place .
It ’ s not that it presents additional evidence , but instead dives into the numbers in a way that makes it crystal clear voter fraud was the only viable explanation for surges in votes that were isolated to key counties in swing states .
What makes his analysis different from others is that it quantifies the likely voter fraud scope in a way that makes clear it was sufficient to change the results of the election .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This study provides measures of vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election .
It first compares Fulton county ’ s precincts that are adjacent to similar precincts in neighboring counties that had no allegations of fraud to isolate the impact of Fulton county ’ s vote-counting process ( including potential fraud ) .
In measuring the difference in President Trump ’ s vote share of the absentee ballots for these adjacent precincts , we account for the difference in his vote share of the in-person voting and the difference in registered voters ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusual 7.81 % drop in Trump ’ s percentage of the absentee ballots for Fulton County alone of 11,350 votes , or over 80 % of Biden ’ s vote lead in Georgia .
The same approach is applied to Allegheny County in Pennsylvania for both absentee and provisional ballots .
The estimated number of fraudulent votes from those two sources is about 55,270 votes .
Second , vote fraud can increase voter turnout rate .
Increased fraud can take many forms : higher rates of filling out absentee ballots for people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting , ineligible people voting , or even payments to legally registered people for their votes .
However , the increase might not be as large as the fraud if votes for opposing candidates are either lost , destroyed , or replaced with ballots filled out for the other candidate .
The estimates here indicate that there were 70,000 to 79,000 “ excess ” votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania .
Adding Arizona , Michigan , Nevada , and Wisconsin , the total increases to up to 289,000 excess votes .
The data Lott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the presence of massive voter fraud .
But it ’ s bigger than that .
The coordination between states becomes apparent when we realize the same process that were used in one county were also applied to others .
There are differences in the way the cheaters went about their normal business of cheating before and on election night , but the post-election night injections of ballots were uniform .
In other words , they cheated stealthily at first but when it was clear they had still lost , they went with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempts .
Unfortunately , all of the so-called “ arbiters of truth ” have declined to cover any of this , just as they ’ ve covered up the entire process from the start .
Mainstream media and Big Tech in particular are complicit in this cover-up to the point that they often do not even try to debunk reports like Lott ’ s .
They simply announce that the election is over and there ’ s nothing more to be said about it .
But the details of Lott ’ s report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ definitely worth spreading to the masses .
If mainstream media won ’ t cover it , we will .
If Big Tech will try to suppress it , we ’ ll continue to share anyway .
John Lott is a world-renowned economist and statistician .
His work has always been impeccable and this particular research is top notch .
There is no feasible way for the left to counter it , which is why they ’ re focused on keeping it away from as many eyeballs as possible .
As we continue to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrive , this isn ’ t it .
But it ’ s further affirmation of the righteousness of our pursuits .
The truth is clearly on our side even if they liars are more powerful and numerous .
Is it a bombshell ?
Technically , no .
It ’ s a methodical , comprehensive analysis that logically reveals what tens of millions of Americans already knew : The election was stolen through massive , coordinated voter fraud .
This is 100 % certain .
COVID-19 lockdowns are taking down an independent news outlet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be easy .
We could use some help keeping this site afloat .
Colleagues have called me the worst fundraiser ever .
My skills are squarely rooted on the journalistic side of running a news outlet .
Paying the bills has never been my forte , but we ’ ve survived .
We have ads on the site that help , but since the site ’ s inception this has been a labor of love that otherwise doesn ’ t bring in the level of revenue necessary to justify it .
When I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , I did so knowing I wouldn ’ t make nearly as much money .
But what we do at NOQ Report to deliver the truth and fight the progressive mainstream media narrative that has plagued this nation is too important for me to sacrifice it for the sake of wealth .
We know we ’ ll never make a ton of money this way , and we ’ re okay with that .
Things have become harder with the coronavirus lockdowns .
Both ad money and donations that have kept us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We thought we could weather the storm , but the resurgence of lockdowns that mainstream media and Democrats are pushing has put our prospects in jeopardy .
In short , we are now in desperate need of financial assistance .
The best way NOQ Report readers can help is to donate .
Our Giving Fuel page makes it easy to donate one-time or monthly .
Alternatively , you can donate through PayPal as well .
We need approximately $ 17,300 to stay afloat through March when we hope the economy will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonderful and any amount that brings us closer to our goal is greatly appreciated .
The second way to help is to become a partner .
We ’ ve strongly considered seeking angel investors in the past but because we were paying the bills , it didn ’ t seem necessary .
Now , we ’ re struggling to pay the bills .
This shouldn ’ t be the case as our traffic the last year has been going up dramatically .
June , 2018 , we had 11,678 visitors .
A year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were up to 116,194 .
In June , 2020 , we had 614,192 .
In November , 2020 , we hit 1.2 million visitors .
We ’ re heading in the right direction and we believe we ’ re ready talk to patriotic investors who want to not only “ get in on the action ” but more importantly who want to help America hear the truth .
Interested investors should contact me directly with the contact button above .
As the world spirals towards radical progressivism , the need for truthful journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these times , we need as many conservative media voices as possible .
Please help keep NOQ Report going .
Join fellow patriots as we form a grassroots movement to advance the cause of conservatism .
The coronavirus crisis has prompted many , even some conservatives , to promote authoritarianism .
It ’ s understandable to some extent now , but it must not be allowed to embed itself in American life .
We currently have 8000+ patriots with us in a very short time .
If you are interested , please join @ @ @ @ @

Subscribe for free to the America First Report newsletter.
Americans have been conned. We are still being conned. This is, in fact, the biggest con-job perpetrated against the masses since WMDs were used as the predicate for permanent Middle East wars. The only reason that con-job was technically bigger is because it fooled more people. This one only seems to be fooling about half of the country. But its effects may end up being even bigger as a corrupt, controlled puppet of the Chinese Communist Party is poised to become the leader of the free world.
An academic analysis and report written by a Department of Justice researcher may be the clearest indication that massive voter fraud took place. It’s not that it presents additional evidence, but instead dives into the numbers in a way that makes it crystal clear voter fraud was the only viable explanation for surges in votes that were isolated to key counties in swing states. What makes his analysis different from others is that it quantifies the likely voter fraud scope in a way that makes clear it was sufficient to change the results of the election. According to the abstract of his 25-page report:
This study provides measures of vote fraud in the 2020 presidential election. It first compares Fulton county’s precincts that are adjacent to similar precincts in neighboring counties that had no allegations of fraud to isolate the impact of Fulton county’s vote-counting process (including potential fraud). In measuring the difference in President Trump’s vote share of the absentee ballots for these adjacent precincts, we account for the difference in his vote share of the in-person voting and the difference in registered voters’ demographics. The best estimate shows an unusual 7.81% drop in Trump’s percentage of the absentee ballots for Fulton County alone of 11,350 votes, or over 80% of Biden’s vote lead in Georgia. The same approach is applied to Allegheny County in Pennsylvania for both absentee and provisional ballots. The estimated number of fraudulent votes from those two sources is about 55,270 votes.
Second, vote fraud can increase voter turnout rate. Increased fraud can take many forms: higher rates of filling out absentee ballots for people who hadn’t voted, dead people voting, ineligible people voting, or even payments to legally registered people for their votes. However, the increase might not be as large as the fraud if votes for opposing candidates are either lost, destroyed, or replaced with ballots filled out for the other candidate. The estimates here indicate that there were 70,000 to 79,000 “excess” votes in Georgia and Pennsylvania. Adding Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin, the total increases to up to 289,000 excess votes.
The data Lott analyzes and subsequently explains is inexplicable without the presence of massive voter fraud. But it’s bigger than that. The coordination between states becomes apparent when we realize the same process that were used in one county were also applied to others. There are differences in the way the cheaters went about their normal business of cheating before and on election night, but the post-election night injections of ballots were uniform. In other words, they cheated stealthily at first but when it was clear they had still lost, they went with the clumsier, more easily noticeable wholesale fraud attempts.
Unfortunately, all of the so-called “arbiters of truth” have declined to cover any of this, just as they’ve covered up the entire process from the start. Mainstream media and Big Tech in particular are complicit in this cover-up to the point that they often do not even try to debunk reports like Lott’s. They simply announce that the election is over and there’s nothing more to be said about it. But the details of Lott’s report are not only worth reading, but definitely worth spreading to the masses. If mainstream media won’t cover it, we will. If Big Tech will try to suppress it, we’ll continue to share anyway.
New Lott study estimates 11,350 absentee votes lost to Trump in Georgia. Another 289,000 "excess (fraudulent) votes" across GA, AZ, MI, NV, PA, and WI. Check it out! ➡https://t.co/eIBjdmox5R pic.twitter.com/2MlKVbBoLO — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2020
John Lott is a world-renowned economist and statistician. His work has always been impeccable and this particular research is top notch. There is no feasible way for the left to counter it, which is why they’re focused on keeping it away from as many eyeballs as possible. As we continue to hope and pray for the MOAB to arrive, this isn’t it. But it’s further affirmation of the righteousness of our pursuits. The truth is clearly on our side even if they liars are more powerful and numerous.
Is it a bombshell? Technically, no. It’s a methodical, comprehensive analysis that logically reveals what tens of millions of Americans already knew: The election was stolen through massive, coordinated voter fraud. This is 100% certain.
COVID-19 lockdowns are taking down an independent news outlet
Nobody said running a media site would be easy. We could use some help keeping this site afloat.
Colleagues have called me the worst fundraiser ever. My skills are squarely rooted on the journalistic side of running a news outlet. Paying the bills has never been my forte, but we’ve survived. We have ads on the site that help, but since the site’s inception this has been a labor of love that otherwise doesn’t bring in the level of revenue necessary to justify it.
When I left a nice, corporate career in 2017, I did so knowing I wouldn’t make nearly as much money. But what we do at NOQ Report to deliver the truth and fight the progressive mainstream media narrative that has plagued this nation is too important for me to sacrifice it for the sake of wealth. We know we’ll never make a ton of money this way, and we’re okay with that.
This America First, veteran-owned company is ready to help you eat well today and eat well tomorrow. Use promo code “big15” for 15% off at checkout. Don’t wait for beef to become more scarce. Stock up on freeze-dried cubes made from Ribeyes, NY Strips, and Premium Cuts.is ready to help you eat well today and eat well tomorrow. Use promo code “big15” for 15% off at checkout.
Things have become harder with the coronavirus lockdowns. Both ad money and donations that have kept us afloat for a while have dropped dramatically. We thought we could weather the storm, but the resurgence of lockdowns that mainstream media and Democrats are pushing has put our prospects in jeopardy. In short, we are now in desperate need of financial assistance.
The best way NOQ Report readers can help is to donate. Our Giving Fuel page makes it easy to donate one-time or monthly. Alternatively, you can donate through PayPal as well. We need approximately $17,300 to stay afloat through March when we hope the economy will be more open, but more would be wonderful and any amount that brings us closer to our goal is greatly appreciated.
The second way to help is to become a partner. We’ve strongly considered seeking angel investors in the past but because we were paying the bills, it didn’t seem necessary. Now, we’re struggling to pay the bills. This shouldn’t be the case as our traffic the last year has been going up dramatically. June, 2018, we had 11,678 visitors. A year later in June, 2019, we were up to 116,194. In June, 2020, we had 614,192. In November, 2020, we hit 1.2 million visitors.
We’re heading in the right direction and we believe we’re ready talk to patriotic investors who want to not only “get in on the action” but more importantly who want to help America hear the truth. Interested investors should contact me directly with the contact button above.
As the world spirals towards radical progressivism, the need for truthful journalism has never been greater. But in these times, we need as many conservative media voices as possible. Please help keep NOQ Report going.
Join fellow patriots as we form a grassroots movement to advance the cause of conservatism. The coronavirus crisis has prompted many, even some conservatives, to promote authoritarianism. It’s understandable to some extent now, but it must not be allowed to embed itself in American life. We currently have 8000+ patriots with us in a very short time. If you are interested, please join us to receive updates.
[yikes-mailchimp form=”1″]


thelibertydaily--2020-12-30--Teachers Unions Must Never Be Allowed to Ban Kids From an Education Again

As an adult who teaches , I got to choose an open school .
Union politics have now barred millions of families from a similar privilege .
I don ’ t blame schools for closing in March .
Very little was known about COVID-19 then , so closures seemed the safest decision amid the uncertainty .
Neither do I blame schools for a meager showing that semester .
My own district threw together online curricula and instructional materials practically overnight .
The results were dismal , but it ’ s the best many could have done given the situation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nine months to understand this virus , and all the evidence favors returning to in-person instruction .
Studies have found that schools are not in fact the “ super spreaders ” many feared .
Dr. Anthony Fauci himself has said to “ close the bars and keep the schools open.
” Perhaps some schools in hot-spots ought to close , but they should do so for genuine safety concerns , not fear of consequences at the next election .
Citing the social , emotional , and academic benefits of in-person learning , The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” for open schools everywhere possible .
Nonetheless , the majority of our nation ’ s children have spent the last nine months staring at a computer screen at home , clicking through homework links or simply opting to not show up .
One institution bears significant guilt for this state of affairs : teacher ’ s unions .
Cato Institute researcher Corey DeAngelis crunched the numbers and confirmed what many suspected : school closures had more to do with union power than pandemic concerns .
When he reviewed the decisions that various @ @ @ @ @ @ @ close , he found that the data correlated more closely with the strength of policies favorable to unions than to case counts and deaths .
The politics get more ludicrous .
Unions have protested when school officials set open dates .
While discussing school openings , the Los Angeles teachers union also demanded a wealth tax and Medicare for All .
A number of unions banded together with the Socialists of America on a resolution to “ demand safe schools , ” only to eschew discussions of safe openings to instead decry charter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ At the end of last semester , I decided to change districts to one that would open .
Some of my students have had to quarantine .
However , with masks , social distancing , and hand sanitizer , we ’ ve had no local spread ; we ’ ve traced our positive cases to external exposures .
We ’ ve had no disastrous outbreak .
Rather , we have spent our year so far discussing books , playing vocabulary games , running football plays at recess , learning subjects and predicates , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and doing everything a school ought to do : promoting socialization , academic development , and mental health .
As an adult , I got to choose an open school .
Union politics have now barred millions of families from a similar privilege .
The academic losses are severe .
In June , The New York Times reported months ’ worth of learning losses because of school closures .
Fewer than half of students showed up during that first semester online .
While attendance has improved the learning loss continues , especially among @ @ @ @ @ @ @ critical response , the Chicago Teachers Union deleted a tweet insinuating that the push to open schools comes from “ racism , sexism , and misogyny.
” Considering who these learning losses affect most , it ’ s quite the opposite .
If enrollment numbers are any determinant of public opinion , then school openings appear wildly popular .
The superintendent of Boston Catholic Schools reported an increase of 4,000 students after they made their announcement to open .
Other districts have seen similar trends .
Families are voting with their feet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any in-person schooling available .
If nothing else , this situation is a clear example of both union power and their disregard for student concerns .
Families , teachers , and taxpayers can not truly influence school decisions when union members have the power to strike , undue influence in local elections , and the purse of their national affiliates .
The American Federation of Teachers gave more in political donations than the boogie-man Koch Industries did in 2020 .
Teachers unions have long been a dominant force in local and national politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the worst of the pandemic closures seem nigh over , there ’ s a clear policy moving forward that can protect students from similar sways of union fickleness : school choice .
Zipcodes locked students into closed schools during the pandemic , and only those with means could look elsewhere .
A few others chose “ pandemic pods ” but even that forces the opportunity cost of staying home from a job .
They should have had the freedom to look elsewhere without legal consequences , but our current laws kept them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to continue legislative victories that weaken the sway of government unions over American education .
The Supreme Court decision Janus v. AFSCME ensured that no public school teachers need to pay union dues if they do not want to .
Local laws in many states increased austerity measures to ensure they don ’ t follow Detroit ’ s lead and bankrupt themselves from over-promised , union-bargained pensions .
School choice would similarly allow any family to select a school that is less beholden to union pressure .
Unions do not care for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abundantly clear .
They ’ ve lost prestige in many people ’ s minds from this .
It ’ s right that they continue to lose political power too .

I don’t blame schools for closing in March. Very little was known about COVID-19 then, so closures seemed the safest decision amid the uncertainty.
Neither do I blame schools for a meager showing that semester. My own district threw together online curricula and instructional materials practically overnight. The results were dismal, but it’s the best many could have done given the situation.
However, we’ve now had nine months to understand this virus, and all the evidence favors returning to in-person instruction. Studies have found that schools are not in fact the “super spreaders” many feared. Dr. Anthony Fauci himself has said to “close the bars and keep the schools open.”
Perhaps some schools in hot-spots ought to close, but they should do so for genuine safety concerns, not fear of consequences at the next election. Citing the social, emotional, and academic benefits of in-person learning, The American Association of Pediatrics “strongly advocates” for open schools everywhere possible.
Nonetheless, the majority of our nation’s children have spent the last nine months staring at a computer screen at home, clicking through homework links or simply opting to not show up. One institution bears significant guilt for this state of affairs: teacher’s unions.
Cato Institute researcher Corey DeAngelis crunched the numbers and confirmed what many suspected: school closures had more to do with union power than pandemic concerns. When he reviewed the decisions that various districts and schools made to open or close, he found that the data correlated more closely with the strength of policies favorable to unions than to case counts and deaths.
The politics get more ludicrous. Unions have protested when school officials set open dates. While discussing school openings, the Los Angeles teachers union also demanded a wealth tax and Medicare for All. A number of unions banded together with the Socialists of America on a resolution to “demand safe schools,” only to eschew discussions of safe openings to instead decry charter schools and suggest cancellation of rent.
At the end of last semester, I decided to change districts to one that would open. Some of my students have had to quarantine. However, with masks, social distancing, and hand sanitizer, we’ve had no local spread; we’ve traced our positive cases to external exposures. We’ve had no disastrous outbreak.
Rather, we have spent our year so far discussing books, playing vocabulary games, running football plays at recess, learning subjects and predicates, decorating my room with Christmas lights, and doing everything a school ought to do: promoting socialization, academic development, and mental health.
As an adult, I got to choose an open school. Union politics have now barred millions of families from a similar privilege.
The academic losses are severe. In June, The New York Times reported months’ worth of learning losses because of school closures. Fewer than half of students showed up during that first semester online. While attendance has improved the learning loss continues, especially among poor and minority students.
After a critical response, the Chicago Teachers Union deleted a tweet insinuating that the push to open schools comes from “racism, sexism, and misogyny.” Considering who these learning losses affect most, it’s quite the opposite.
If enrollment numbers are any determinant of public opinion, then school openings appear wildly popular. The superintendent of Boston Catholic Schools reported an increase of 4,000 students after they made their announcement to open. Other districts have seen similar trends. Families are voting with their feet, many opting out of public education for any in-person schooling available.
If nothing else, this situation is a clear example of both union power and their disregard for student concerns. Families, teachers, and taxpayers cannot truly influence school decisions when union members have the power to strike, undue influence in local elections, and the purse of their national affiliates.
The American Federation of Teachers gave more in political donations than the boogie-man Koch Industries did in 2020. Teachers unions have long been a dominant force in local and national politics, both in funding and manpower.
While the worst of the pandemic closures seem nigh over, there’s a clear policy moving forward that can protect students from similar sways of union fickleness: school choice. Zipcodes locked students into closed schools during the pandemic, and only those with means could look elsewhere.
A few others chose “pandemic pods” but even that forces the opportunity cost of staying home from a job. They should have had the freedom to look elsewhere without legal consequences, but our current laws kept them from doing so.
It’s time to continue legislative victories that weaken the sway of government unions over American education. The Supreme Court decision Janus v. AFSCME ensured that no public school teachers need to pay union dues if they do not want to. Local laws in many states increased austerity measures to ensure they don’t follow Detroit’s lead and bankrupt themselves from over-promised, union-bargained pensions. School choice would similarly allow any family to select a school that is less beholden to union pressure.
Unions do not care for students. The pandemic has made this abundantly clear. They’ve lost prestige in many people’s minds from this. It’s right that they continue to lose political power too.
Daniel Buck is a teacher in Wisconsin with a master’s in education from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is also the columnist editor for Lone Conservative, an organization dedicated to mentoring and publishing the next generation of conservative advocates.