thestream--2020-12-29--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.


thestream--2020-12-29--Is QAnon Actually Helping Pedophiles More Than Hurting Them?

On October 15 , President Trump was interviewed at length by NBC ’ s Savannah Guthrie , covering a wide range of subjects in their town hall event .
One subject , however , stood out above the others , and it has been referred to time and again since the interview .
What did Trump think about QAnon ?
After asking the president , yet again , to denounce white supremacy groups , she then asked him to denounce QAnon , which she described as “ this theory that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responded by saying that he knew very little QAnon , to which Guthrie replied that she just explained it to him .
Trump answered , “ I know very little .
You told me , but what you tell me , doesn ’ t necessarily make it fact .
I hate to say that .
I know nothing about it .
I do know they are very much against pedophilia .
They fight it very hard .
But I know nothing about it .
If you ’ d like me to— ” At @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They believe that it is a Satanic cult run by the deep state.
” The testy exchange continued , with Trump emphasizing again , “ let me just tell you .
What I do hear about it , is they are very strongly against pedophilia .
And I agree with that .
I mean , I do agree with that.
” So , the one thing that Trump said he did know about was that QAnon strongly opposed pedophilia , which he did as well .
Is QAnon Detracting From the Fight Against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ QAnon is actually doing more harm than good when it comes to opposing pedophilia , in particular , the sex trafficking of children ?
Before answering that question , let me cover a few basics about QAnon ( which , to be candid , I just learned myself , having known almost nothing about QAnon until very recently ) .
What is the Theory Behind QAnon ?
As explained in the Wall Street Journal , “ Followers believe that ‘ Q ’ is a high-ranking government insider , presumably with a military or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hidden truth of what they see as an international bureaucracy scheming against Mr. Trump and his supporters.
” “ Q ” has been posting since October 2017 with complete anonymity .
As for QAnon itself , it is described as “ a far right-wing , loosely organized network and community of believers who embrace a range of unsubstantiated beliefs .
These views center around the idea that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles — mainly consisting of what they see as elitist Democrats , politicians , journalists , entertainment moguls and other institutional figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so-called “ deep state ” government , which they say seeks to undermine President Trump , mostly with aid of media and entertainment outlets.
” At the head of this international pedophile ring are people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton , with the cooperation , of course , of the Democratic Party .
Trump , on his part , works hand in hand with QAnon ( all behind the scenes , of course ) , to expose and destroy this horrific evil .
The deeper you dig , the more bizarre it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in recent weeks , it gets really bizarre . )
Christian Conservative Researcher Digs into QAnon and Finds it Harmful A few months ago , Prof. James Beverley , a respected research scholar and a Christian conservative , decided to launch his own study of the QAnon controversy , deciding to look for the facts rather than come in with his own preconceived ideas .
The more he studied , working with a team of fellow-researchers , the more concerned he became , sharing some of his findings with me .
We agreed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a book that could serve as the definitive , go-to guide for those wanting to know the truth about QAnon .
And , with the book publishing process typically taking about one year from start to finish , we agreed that my ministry ’ s own publishing imprint , EqualTime Books , would release the book as soon as it was completed .
On Monday , he joined me on the radio to discuss that very book , his just-published study , The QAnon Deception : Everything You Need to Know about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Social Media Reponses to Our Interview Show Depth of Deception Not only was the content of the interview absolutely shocking , but some of the social media responses to the interview were shocking as well .
Prof. Beverley was instantly dismissed as an outright liar who was completely ignorant of the facts and I was part of the Deep State , seeking to cover up the truth .
( You can watch the interview here . )
How dare we question that Hillary Clinton was not only involved in sex-trafficking but actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ How dare we question that both the Pope and the Dalai Lama were some of the global elites involved in this sex-trafficking scheme .
What was scary was that there seemed to be no way to penetrate this conspiratorial fortress , since the more facts that were presented , the more confirmation that provided for the conspiracy .
“ That ’ s how deep the cover up is !
” “ What are You Doing at Walgreens ?
” It reminds me of a story involving one of my closest friends , Scott @ @ @ @ @ @ @ early in the morning , waking him out of a sound sleep .
( He lived near the west coast ; the caller lived on the east coast . )
When my friend answered the call , it was his elderly grandfather , who said , “ Is this Walgreens ?
I need to renew my prescription.
” Realizing that his grandfather had dialed the wrong number , my friend replied , “ Grandpa , this is Scott .
You called me by mistake.
” His grandfather replied , “ What are you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s an illustration of what we ’ re dealing with when we try to interact with QAnon believers .
And that is why Prof. Beverley ’ s new book identifies this as “ the world ’ s most dangerous conspiracy theory.
” It really is taking the world by storm , with followers identified in at least 100 nations .
Spreading Lies About Child Trafficking Undermines the Work of Those Who Truly Fight It What makes things all the more pathetic is that , while QAnon is absolutely right in standing against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry , QAnon ’ s spreading of baseless conspiracy theories is actually undermining the work of those who are fighting against this evil .
( I would include here quite a few of my ministry school grads who have been working in America and overseas to combat this foul industry and then rescue and rehabilitate the children who have been abused . )
During our interview , Prof. Beverley drew attention to an open letter signed by almost 100 organizations involved in fighting against sex-trafficking .
The letter , which is quoted in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — political committee , public office holder , candidate , or media outlet — who lends any credibility to QAnon conspiracies related to human trafficking actively harms the fight against human trafficking .
Indeed , any political committee , candidate , public office holder or media that does not expressly condemn QAnon and actively debunk the lies should be held accountable.
” And how did some QAnon believers respond to this open letter ?
According to Prof. Beverley , this was proof that these organizations had also been bought out by the Deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What are you doing at Walgreens ?
” The universe can be turned upside down for the sake of QAnon , a deception as rampant as it is deep , and one that has drawn in many fine people with good intentions .
May the Lord deliver them before they lose all touch with reality .
And may child-trafficking be exposed wherever it is found .
It is a monstrous evil that must be stopped .
What a shame that QAnon appears to be making things worse .
Dr. Michael Brown ( www.askdrbrown.org @ @ @ @ @ @ @ syndicated Line of Fire radio program .
His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads : Will We Pass the Trump Test ?
Connect with him on Facebook , Twitter or YouTube .
Editor ’ s note : The Stream ’ s parent organization , Life Outreach International , works to fight international and domestic human trafficking , including child sex trafficking .
Help us fight .

On October 15, President Trump was interviewed at length by NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, covering a wide range of subjects in their town hall event. One subject, however, stood out above the others, and it has been referred to time and again since the interview. What did Trump think about QAnon?
After asking the president, yet again, to denounce white supremacy groups, she then asked him to denounce QAnon, which she described as “this theory that Democrats are a satanic pedophile ring and that you are the savior, of that.”
He responded by saying that he knew very little QAnon, to which Guthrie replied that she just explained it to him.
Trump answered, “I know very little. You told me, but what you tell me, doesn’t necessarily make it fact. I hate to say that. I know nothing about it. I do know they are very much against pedophilia. They fight it very hard. But I know nothing about it. If you’d like me to—”
At this point, Guthrie interjected, “They believe that it is a Satanic cult run by the deep state.”
The testy exchange continued, with Trump emphasizing again, “let me just tell you. What I do hear about it, is they are very strongly against pedophilia. And I agree with that. I mean, I do agree with that.”
So, the one thing that Trump said he did know about was that QAnon strongly opposed pedophilia, which he did as well.
Is QAnon Detracting From the Fight Against Pedophilia?
But could it be that QAnon is actually doing more harm than good when it comes to opposing pedophilia, in particular, the sex trafficking of children?
Before answering that question, let me cover a few basics about QAnon (which, to be candid, I just learned myself, having known almost nothing about QAnon until very recently).
Here’s the fundamental theory in a nutshell.
What is the Theory Behind QAnon?
As explained in the Wall Street Journal, “Followers believe that ‘Q’ is a high-ranking government insider, presumably with a military or intelligence background, committed to exposing the hidden truth of what they see as an international bureaucracy scheming against Mr. Trump and his supporters.”
“Q” has been posting since October 2017 with complete anonymity.
The more he studied, working with a team of fellow-researchers, the more concerned he became, sharing some of his findings with me.
As for QAnon itself, it is described as “a far right-wing, loosely organized network and community of believers who embrace a range of unsubstantiated beliefs. These views center around the idea that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles — mainly consisting of what they see as elitist Democrats, politicians, journalists, entertainment moguls and other institutional figures — have long controlled much of the so-called “deep state” government, which they say seeks to undermine President Trump, mostly with aid of media and entertainment outlets.”
At the head of this international pedophile ring are people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, with the cooperation, of course, of the Democratic Party. Trump, on his part, works hand in hand with QAnon (all behind the scenes, of course), to expose and destroy this horrific evil.
The deeper you dig, the more bizarre it gets. (As I have learned in recent weeks, it gets really bizarre.)
Christian Conservative Researcher Digs into QAnon and Finds it Harmful
A few months ago, Prof. James Beverley, a respected research scholar and a Christian conservative, decided to launch his own study of the QAnon controversy, deciding to look for the facts rather than come in with his own preconceived ideas.
The more he studied, working with a team of fellow-researchers, the more concerned he became, sharing some of his findings with me. We agreed that he should publish those findings in a book that could serve as the definitive, go-to guide for those wanting to know the truth about QAnon. And, with the book publishing process typically taking about one year from start to finish, we agreed that my ministry’s own publishing imprint, EqualTime Books, would release the book as soon as it was completed.
On Monday, he joined me on the radio to discuss that very book, his just-published study, The QAnon Deception: Everything You Need to Know about the World’s Most Dangerous Conspiracy Theory.
Social Media Reponses to Our Interview Show Depth of Deception
Not only was the content of the interview absolutely shocking, but some of the social media responses to the interview were shocking as well.
Prof. Beverley was instantly dismissed as an outright liar who was completely ignorant of the facts and I was part of the Deep State, seeking to cover up the truth. (You can watch the interview here.)
How dare we question that Hillary Clinton was not only involved in sex-trafficking but actually murdered and ate the children herself.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
How dare we question that both the Pope and the Dalai Lama were some of the global elites involved in this sex-trafficking scheme.
I kid you not.
What was scary was that there seemed to be no way to penetrate this conspiratorial fortress, since the more facts that were presented, the more confirmation that provided for the conspiracy. “That’s how deep the cover up is!”
“What are You Doing at Walgreens?”
It reminds me of a story involving one of my closest friends, Scott V.
He once received a call very early in the morning, waking him out of a sound sleep. (He lived near the west coast; the caller lived on the east coast.)
When my friend answered the call, it was his elderly grandfather, who said, “Is this Walgreens? I need to renew my prescription.”
Realizing that his grandfather had dialed the wrong number, my friend replied, “Grandpa, this is Scott. You called me by mistake.”
His grandfather replied, “What are you doing at Walgreens?”
That’s an illustration of what we’re dealing with when we try to interact with QAnon believers. And that is why Prof. Beverley’s new book identifies this as “the world’s most dangerous conspiracy theory.” It really is taking the world by storm, with followers identified in at least 100 nations.
Spreading Lies About Child Trafficking Undermines the Work of Those Who Truly Fight It
What makes things all the more pathetic is that, while QAnon is absolutely right in standing against the very real, absolutely horrific, child-trafficking industry, QAnon’s spreading of baseless conspiracy theories is actually undermining the work of those who are fighting against this evil. (I would include here quite a few of my ministry school grads who have been working in America and overseas to combat this foul industry and then rescue and rehabilitate the children who have been abused.)
During our interview, Prof. Beverley drew attention to an open letter signed by almost 100 organizations involved in fighting against sex-trafficking. The letter, which is quoted in the book, said, “Anybody — political committee, public office holder, candidate, or media outlet — who lends any credibility to QAnon conspiracies related to human trafficking actively harms the fight against human trafficking. Indeed, any political committee, candidate, public office holder or media that does not expressly condemn QAnon and actively debunk the lies should be held accountable.”
And how did some QAnon believers respond to this open letter? According to Prof. Beverley, this was proof that these organizations had also been bought out by the Deep State.
Put another way, “What are you doing at Walgreens?”
The universe can be turned upside down for the sake of QAnon, a deception as rampant as it is deep, and one that has drawn in many fine people with good intentions. May the Lord deliver them before they lose all touch with reality. And may child-trafficking be exposed wherever it is found. It is a monstrous evil that must be stopped.
What a shame that QAnon appears to be making things worse.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test? Connect with him on Facebook, Twitter or YouTube.
Editor’s note: The Stream’s parent organization, Life Outreach International, works to fight international and domestic human trafficking, including child sex trafficking. Help us fight.


thestream--2020-12-29--Elaborate, Earnest Parable ‘Soul’ Shows Pixar Still Has the Spark

Woody and Buzz .
Marlin and Dory .
Mike and Sully .
Though Pixar Animation Studios has only been making feature films for 25 years , these polar-opposite animated buddies are household names worldwide .
In their most ambitious project to date , Pixar ’ s Soul presents another odd-couple pairing .
An African American music teacher and a stubborn , energetic “ pre-born soul ” journey together to discover purpose and the meaning of life .
Guided by director Pete Docter , known for his Christian faith , the film welcomes viewers to consider what happens after life .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sequel and has only light content concerns common to PG films .
Unlike other Pixar films , Soul also isn ’ t mostly a comedy .
This artful , reflective film might actually bore many viewers under age 8 .
“ We hoped that we would incite some good conversations , ” Docter said recently to faith-based journalists .
“ Make people go : ‘ OK , we ’ ve got to go get some coffee and talk about this.
’ Or , now I guess , sit on Zoom and talk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Disney Plus , Soul has a far-out premise .
Living in Queens , middle-aged musician Joe Gardner ( Jamie Foxx ) once had lofty dreams of playing with NYC ’ s hottest jazz acts in happenin ’ clubs every night .
Instead , he ’ s getting worn down as he teaches middle-school students who mostly can ’ t carry a tune and don ’ t care .
After an accident leaves him unconscious , Joe finds himself one step away from the hereafter .
But he bails from an ethereal up escalator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a reality where souls are first formed called The Great Before .
Half the story unfolds within this beautifully realized visual metaphor space .
The rest occurs as Joe navigates his New York City neighborhood with a disembodied being named 22 ( Tina Fey ) .
This buddy comedy takes several surprising turns in both realms .
The music , with original jazz compositions from top band leader Jon Batiste , does not disappoint .
“ We got to meet and work with Herbie Hancock and Quincy Jones , these living legends of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It was fascinating and mind-blowing.
” Indeed , the writer/director teamed up with African American playwright Kemp Powers to make Soul an authentic reflection of the black experience .
( Some observers debate whether it avoids all common stereotypes . )
Suffice to say , Soul has sparked controversy for daring to dive headfirst into life-and-death questions .
Parents have long trusted Pixar to tell thoughtful , emotionally resonant stories .
Docter ’ s last entry Inside Out , a story about feelings and the inner life , is essentially a prequel to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release , social media poked fun at it and past Pixar films .
Of course , funny memes oversimplify how Pixar films have such high emotional intelligence .
Their years-long story process nails down what makes even abstract characters tick .
“ If you make it visual , then everybody gets it [ through ] action , ” said Docter .
“ This character wants this , but another thing is in the way .
Now I can understand it.
” With its focus on big ideas , Soul can work for families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helps if parents know what ’ s going on .
The film is more philosophical than theological .
In a crash course on worldviews , the director reveals how Soul rejects certain ideas .
“ We start with essentialism , ” said Docter .
“ The idea that : ‘ I was born to do this.
’ It ’ s straight out of Aristotle or Plato .
Then we counter with the character 22 .
The humor is in her nihilism , the ultimate ‘ meaninglessness ’ of it all.
” Soul lands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hopeful existentialism .
It ’ s congruous with a biblical worldview , as one can hear in Docter ’ s careful response .
“ All of life is spiritual , ” he said .
“ Everything you do contributes to who you are as a person and the overall meaning of your life.
” During their creative process , Docter and his team spoke with many religious figures including pastors , rabbis , and shamans .
Plugged In catalogs how certain scenes seem to reflect New Age or other belief systems .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s recent flicks Onward and Coco also explored near-death experiences and the afterlife , with varying results .
Still , this film explicitly affirms people have souls , and that death could happen at any moment .
It also alludes to heaven and hell as potential realities .
In a postmodern age , such themes invite discussion of spiritual ideas .
Unlike past Pixar outings , Soul won ’ t make you feel for the personal struggles of talking fish or anthropomorphic ants .
From its visuals to story structure , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Soul leaves viewers to ponder how much life is about doing versus being .
The finale , which recreates scenes of everyday life with vivid colors and precision , declares that every breath is a gift .
“ Working on this film [ has ] made me more grateful , appreciative , and desiring of practicing that , ” said Docter .
“ That ’ s not a personality attribute ; it ’ s a practice you have to exercise daily .
“ It ’ s a great reminder of how I can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and be more present in moments.
” Rated PG for thematic elements and some language , Soul is now streaming on Disney Plus .
Stream contributor Josh M. Shepherd covers culture , faith , and public policy issues for media outlets including The Federalist .
Find him on Twitter and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

Woody and Buzz. Marlin and Dory. Mike and Sully.
Though Pixar Animation Studios has only been making feature films for 25 years, these polar-opposite animated buddies are household names worldwide.
In their most ambitious project to date, Pixar’s Soul presents another odd-couple pairing.
An African American music teacher and a stubborn, energetic “pre-born soul” journey together to discover purpose and the meaning of life.
Guided by director Pete Docter, known for his Christian faith, the film welcomes viewers to consider what happens after life.
Thank heaven, it’s not a sequel and has only light content concerns common to PG films.
Unlike other Pixar films, Soul also isn’t mostly a comedy. This artful, reflective film might actually bore many viewers under age 8.
“We hoped that we would incite some good conversations,” Docter said recently to faith-based journalists. “Make people go: ‘OK, we’ve got to go get some coffee and talk about this.’ Or, now I guess, sit on Zoom and talk about it.”
Music Teacher Bares His Soul
Released Christmas Day on Disney Plus, Soul has a far-out premise.
Living in Queens, middle-aged musician Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) once had lofty dreams of playing with NYC’s hottest jazz acts in happenin’ clubs every night. Instead, he’s getting worn down as he teaches middle-school students who mostly can’t carry a tune and don’t care.
After an accident leaves him unconscious, Joe finds himself one step away from the hereafter. But he bails from an ethereal up escalator. Then he finds himself thrust into a reality where souls are first formed called The Great Before.
Half the story unfolds within this beautifully realized visual metaphor space. The rest occurs as Joe navigates his New York City neighborhood with a disembodied being named 22 (Tina Fey). This buddy comedy takes several surprising turns in both realms.
The music, with original jazz compositions from top band leader Jon Batiste, does not disappoint. “We got to meet and work with Herbie Hancock and Quincy Jones, these living legends of jazz,” said Docter. “It was fascinating and mind-blowing.”
Indeed, the writer/director teamed up with African American playwright Kemp Powers to make Soul an authentic reflection of the black experience. (Some observers debate whether it avoids all common stereotypes.)
Suffice to say, Soul has sparked controversy for daring to dive headfirst into life-and-death questions.
When Worldviews Clash
Parents have long trusted Pixar to tell thoughtful, emotionally resonant stories. Docter’s last entry Inside Out, a story about feelings and the inner life, is essentially a prequel to Soul.
Following that film’s release, social media poked fun at it and past Pixar films.
https://twitter.com/MsSammieRose/status/613339034237149184
Of course, funny memes oversimplify how Pixar films have such high emotional intelligence. Their years-long story process nails down what makes even abstract characters tick.
“If you make it visual, then everybody gets it [through] action,” said Docter. “This character wants this, but another thing is in the way. Now I can understand it.”
With its focus on big ideas, Soul can work for families with kids at home. It just helps if parents know what’s going on. The film is more philosophical than theological.
In a crash course on worldviews, the director reveals how Soul rejects certain ideas. “We start with essentialism,” said Docter. “The idea that: ‘I was born to do this.’ It’s straight out of Aristotle or Plato. Then we counter with the character 22. The humor is in her nihilism, the ultimate ‘meaninglessness’ of it all.”
Soul lands on a soaring sequence that reflects aspects of hopeful existentialism. It’s congruous with a biblical worldview, as one can hear in Docter’s careful response.
“All of life is spiritual,” he said. “Everything you do contributes to who you are as a person and the overall meaning of your life.”
Cautions and Conversation Starters
During their creative process, Docter and his team spoke with many religious figures including pastors, rabbis, and shamans. Plugged In catalogs how certain scenes seem to reflect New Age or other belief systems.
It should give parents caution. Pixar’s recent flicks Onward and Coco also explored near-death experiences and the afterlife, with varying results.
Still, this film explicitly affirms people have souls, and that death could happen at any moment. It also alludes to heaven and hell as potential realities. In a postmodern age, such themes invite discussion of spiritual ideas.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Unlike past Pixar outings, Soul won’t make you feel for the personal struggles of talking fish or anthropomorphic ants. From its visuals to story structure, it defies most conventions of animated features.
Soul leaves viewers to ponder how much life is about doing versus being. The finale, which recreates scenes of everyday life with vivid colors and precision, declares that every breath is a gift.
“Working on this film [has] made me more grateful, appreciative, and desiring of practicing that,” said Docter. “That’s not a personality attribute; it’s a practice you have to exercise daily.
“It’s a great reminder of how I can be bringing my full self into everything and be more present in moments.”
Rated PG for thematic elements and some language, Soul is now streaming on Disney Plus.
Stream contributor Josh M. Shepherd covers culture, faith, and public policy issues for media outlets including The Federalist. Find him on Twitter and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-12-29--Amazon Hires Lobbying Firm Connected to Biden’s Top White House Adviser

Amazon , the trillion-dollar tech company , has hired lobbyist Jeff Ricchetti — whose brother will be the top White House counselor to Joe Biden .
Jeff Ricchetti ’ s firm — which he founded in 2001 with his brother Steve Ricchetti , the incoming Biden adviser — registered as a lobbyist for Amazon on Nov. 13 .
According to disclosure forms filed with Congress , Jeff Ricchetti will lobby for Amazon on “ [ i ] ssues related to COVID-19 , including implementation of the CARES Act.
” Biden tapped Steve Ricchetti , his longtime aide , to serve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CNBC first reported that Amazon had hired Jeff Ricchetti .
Ricchetti Inc. is poised to be a lobbying powerhouse in the Biden administration .
Amazon is the 10th company the firm has registered as a client since May 1 , 2020 .
Ricchetti has a stable of other corporate clients , but had inked only one lobbying deal since July 1 , 2016 , according to records filed with Congress .
Ricchetti Inc. registered in August to lobby on behalf of Applied Materials , a California-based firm that produces semiconductor materials .
Ricchetti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House and other executive agencies on U.S. trade policy with China .
Ricchetti also signed an agreement on Nov. 13 to lobby for Vaxart , a biotech company that is developing an oral vaccine for the coronavirus .
Vaxart is under federal investigation over its claims to have been part of Operation Warp Speed , the Trump administration ’ s effort to develop a vaccine this year .
Prosecutors are looking into whether Vaxart misled investors by falsely claiming to be part of Operation Warp Speed .
The Ricchettis formed their lobbying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Clinton administration , where he served as deputy chief of staff .
In that role , Steve Ricchetti helped Clinton lobby Congress to pass a controversial trade deal with China .
Ricchetti served as Biden ’ s chief of staff when Biden served as vice president .
Biden will reportedly rely heavily on Ricchetti as a liaison to Congress .
Jeff Ricchetti did not respond to a request for comment .
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Amazon, the trillion-dollar tech company, has hired lobbyist Jeff Ricchetti — whose brother will be the top White House counselor to Joe Biden.
Jeff Ricchetti’s firm — which he founded in 2001 with his brother Steve Ricchetti, the incoming Biden adviser — registered as a lobbyist for Amazon on Nov. 13.
According to disclosure forms filed with Congress, Jeff Ricchetti will lobby for Amazon on “[i]ssues related to COVID-19, including implementation of the CARES Act.”
Biden tapped Steve Ricchetti, his longtime aide, to serve as his counselor on Nov. 16. CNBC first reported that Amazon had hired Jeff Ricchetti.
Ricchetti Inc. is poised to be a lobbying powerhouse in the Biden administration. Amazon is the 10th company the firm has registered as a client since May 1, 2020. Ricchetti has a stable of other corporate clients, but had inked only one lobbying deal since July 1, 2016, according to records filed with Congress.
Ricchetti Inc. registered in August to lobby on behalf of Applied Materials, a California-based firm that produces semiconductor materials. Ricchetti disclosed that he plans to lobby the White House and other executive agencies on U.S. trade policy with China.
Ricchetti also signed an agreement on Nov. 13 to lobby for Vaxart, a biotech company that is developing an oral vaccine for the coronavirus.
Vaxart is under federal investigation over its claims to have been part of Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s effort to develop a vaccine this year. Prosecutors are looking into whether Vaxart misled investors by falsely claiming to be part of Operation Warp Speed.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The Ricchettis formed their lobbying shop after Steve Ricchetti left the Bill Clinton administration, where he served as deputy chief of staff. In that role, Steve Ricchetti helped Clinton lobby Congress to pass a controversial trade deal with China.
Ricchetti served as Biden’s chief of staff when Biden served as vice president. Biden will reportedly rely heavily on Ricchetti as a liaison to Congress.
Jeff Ricchetti did not respond to a request for comment.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-12-29--God Told Nashville Police Officer to ‘Turn Around’ Seconds Before Blast

Metropolitan Nashville police officer James Wells , Jr. , said at a press conference Sunday morning that he heard God tell him to turn around just seconds before an RV exploded in downtown Nashville Christmas morning .
“ As I ’ m getting ready to walk toward [ fellow officers ] , walking back toward the RV — this might not be politically correct but this is my truth .
I literally heard God tell me to turn around and go check on [ Officer Amanda ] Topping who was by herself down on Broadway , ” said Wells as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turned around , for me it felt like I only took three steps .
The music stopped , and as I ’ m walking back toward Topping now , I just see orange and then I hear a loud boom.
” Wells stumbled because of the force of the bomb .
“ I just told myself to stay on my feet , stay alive and I just take off in a full out sprint and I ’ m running toward Topping to make sure she ’ s ok. ” Topping said that something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ side of the street as well .
“ I just saw the biggest flames I ’ ve ever seen , the biggest explosion.
” “ I don ’ t know how I kept my footing but I kind of blanked that I couldn ’ t see him for a second that I just lost it and I just took off in a sprint towards him , ” she added .
“ I ’ ve never grabbed somebody so hard in my life.
” “ I ’ m a spiritual person , and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this job , I ’ m led by that voice , how I treat people , how I go about doing this job every day , that ’ s what guides me , ” Wells said .
“ And I truly believe that that ’ s what guided me in that sense because I was literally getting ready to walk back toward that RV , and you watch the video you can see that moment of clarity for me when I heard God say , ‘ Go and check on Topping.
’ ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Stream .
You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

Metropolitan Nashville police officer James Wells, Jr., said at a press conference Sunday morning that he heard God tell him to turn around just seconds before an RV exploded in downtown Nashville Christmas morning.
I Literally Heard God
“As I’m getting ready to walk toward [fellow officers], walking back toward the RV — this might not be politically correct but this is my truth. I literally heard God tell me to turn around and go check on [Officer Amanda] Topping who was by herself down on Broadway,” said Wells as he became emotional. “As I turned around, for me it felt like I only took three steps. The music stopped, and as I’m walking back toward Topping now, I just see orange and then I hear a loud boom.” Wells stumbled because of the force of the bomb. “I just told myself to stay on my feet, stay alive and I just take off in a full out sprint and I’m running toward Topping to make sure she’s ok.”
Nashville police officer James Wells recalls the moment he heard the explosion: "I told myself to stay on my feet and stay alive" https://t.co/Kriaak5s4X pic.twitter.com/AvpUOeeFHb — CBS News (@CBSNews) December 27, 2020
Topping said that something told her to move to the other side of the street as well. “I just saw the biggest flames I’ve ever seen, the biggest explosion.”
“I don’t know how I kept my footing but I kind of blanked that I couldn’t see him for a second that I just lost it and I just took off in a sprint towards him,” she added. “I’ve never grabbed somebody so hard in my life.”
Led by God
“I’m a spiritual person, and so I truly believe that when I do this job, I’m led by that voice, how I treat people, how I go about doing this job every day, that’s what guides me,” Wells said. “And I truly believe that that’s what guided me in that sense because I was literally getting ready to walk back toward that RV, and you watch the video you can see that moment of clarity for me when I heard God say, ‘Go and check on Topping.’” Watch:
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-12-29--Pope Francis: Vicar of Christ or Caiaphas? Asking for a Uyghur

“ But one of them , Caiaphas , who was high priest that year , said to them , “ You know nothing at all ; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people , and that the whole nation should not perish.
” ( John 11 : 50-51 ) Perhaps the central vocation of Christians in public life is to stand alongside the scapegoats .
Then to rush to the aid of those whom others abandoned .
Our Lord spoke for the poor whom no one cared for under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aided the Samaritan woman , and even the woman caught in adultery .
The early Church joined the Jews at the walls of Rome , rescuing infants exposed to die in the cold .
The Church preached to slaves and masters their moral equality .
Saint Ambrose stood down a Christian emperor , Theodosius , for his acts of tyrannical cruelty .
When Spain and Portugal signed on and started to profit from North African slave-trading , pope after pope denounced it — to no avail .
In our time , Pope Pius @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communist collectivism and Nazi racism .
Leaning on old Soviet propaganda talking points , some damn him now for relying more on stealth , secret diplomacy , and deception than bold denunciations of the Holocaust .
But Rabbi David Dalin documents that Pius saved hundreds of thousands of Jews across Europe .
He threw open monasteries and convents to hide entire Jewish families , and told papal nuncios to distribute false baptismal certificates .
But perhaps he could have done more .
On the Last Day , each of us will learn how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short .
What is Pope Francis doing now for the most abandoned people on earth ?
Surely if we are meant to see Jesus ’ face in “ the least among us , ” Francis ought to glimpse Him among those with fewest rights and allies today .
Yes , unborn children , of course .
But Francis has shown a strange aversion to pro-life political leaders from the U.S. to Hungary and even his native Argentina .
Francis ’ other political interests seem to him to outweigh the unborn , as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate policies were more urgent than willful murder .
Shocking as it seems , let ’ s set the unborn aside for a moment .
Who ’ s next on the list of human beings , images of God for whom Christ came to die , whom the World has seen fit to forget ?
Surely it ’ s the Uyghur Muslims who live under Chinese occupation .
And in the midst of his frequent , long lists of humanitarian crises , the Uyghurs never get mentioned .
Human rights activist Benedict Rogers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ omission .
He points to Francis ’ Urbi et Orbi address on Christmas Day when he yet again failed to mention the genocide of the Uyghurs , the persecution of Christians in China , the destruction of Hong Kong ’ s freedoms , forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience , the crackdown on all forms of civil society or free expression , atrocities in Tibet and other human rights violations perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party regime .
Pope Francis mentioned the Uyghurs briefly — for the very first time and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his new book Let Us Dream : The Path to a Better Future , he has said nothing further since .
And Bejing reacted furiously even to that very modest comment .
But is the pope seriously going to allow himself to be cowed by Xi Jinping ’ s fury and censor out references to some of the world ’ s gravest human tragedies just because they occur in China ?
Seriously ?
It ’ s worse than Rogers is even willing to say .
The secret deal that Francis sent now-disgraced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese regime was less a peace treaty than an alliance .
It resulted , whistleblowers report , in backdoor secret payments of billions to the Vatican .
As leading Chinese Catholics such as Cardinal Joseph Zen complained , the deal made religious freedom even scarcer in China .
Chinese Christians face worse persecution now than they did before .
Meanwhile , more than a million peaceful Uyghur Muslims live in concentration camps .
They work as slave laborers producing Nike sneakers , Apple phones , and even picking cotton .
Uyghurs are subject @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forced abortions , and — even more grotesquely — vivisection .
That ’ s right , Forbes Magazine has documented that the Chinese regime steals valuable human organs from living political prisoners .
Then it sells them for millions on the international black market .
Billionaires who ruined their livers from too much Dom Perignon can now replace them with those torn from imprisoned believers ( Christian and Muslim ) .
The Vatican had an excellent opportunity to address this .
Last year , its chief authority on Catholic social teaching , Bishop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of China ’ s organ harvesters ( i.e.
, thieves ) .
Did he boldly , like John the Baptist , speak truth to power ?
Sadly , he didn ’ t .
Instead he used that ghoulish occasion to praise the Chinese regime , and suggest a papal visit .
It Is Expedient that the Uyghurs Die Does Pope Francis really believe that it ’ s expedient that one of the earth ’ s peoples , the Uyghurs , be tormented and erased , for the sake of achieving all his other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ask Pope Francis to break his pusillanimous silence on China ’ s abuses .
We ask Francis ’ representatives in America , especially Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington , D.C. , to speak as well .
Cardinal Gregory could do this quite easily , taking an Uber across town on Dec. 29 to the U.S. State Department .
There from 1-3 p.m. the elected representatives of the Uyghur people will join human rights activists of every faith .
Their goal ?
To get the U.S. to designate China ’ s efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of genocide .
Depart From Me , You Cursed History is watching , Your Holiness .
On which side would you like to be remembered ?
Christ is watching , Jorge Bergoglio .
What will you hear from Him on the day of Judgment ?
God forbid it is this : Jason Jones is a senior contributor to The Stream .
He is a film producer , author , activist and human rights worker .
You can follow him at @ JasonJonesShow .
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism .
Together , Jones and Zmirak wrote The Race to Save Our Century .

“But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” (John 11: 50-51)
Perhaps the central vocation of Christians in public life is to stand alongside the scapegoats. Then to rush to the aid of those whom others abandoned. Our Lord spoke for the poor whom no one cared for under Rome’s unjust occupation. He aided the Samaritan woman, and even the woman caught in adultery. The early Church joined the Jews at the walls of Rome, rescuing infants exposed to die in the cold. The Church preached to slaves and masters their moral equality. Saint Ambrose stood down a Christian emperor, Theodosius, for his acts of tyrannical cruelty. When Spain and Portugal signed on and started to profit from North African slave-trading, pope after pope denounced it — to no avail.
Saving Jews from Hitler
In our time, Pope Pius XII firmly condemned the evils both of Communist collectivism and Nazi racism. Leaning on old Soviet propaganda talking points, some damn him now for relying more on stealth, secret diplomacy, and deception than bold denunciations of the Holocaust. But Rabbi David Dalin documents that Pius saved hundreds of thousands of Jews across Europe. He threw open monasteries and convents to hide entire Jewish families, and told papal nuncios to distribute false baptismal certificates.
But perhaps he could have done more. On the Last Day, each of us will learn how far our efforts at imitating Christ fell short.
Unborn Kids and Enslaved Uyghurs
What is Pope Francis doing now for the most abandoned people on earth? Surely if we are meant to see Jesus’ face in “the least among us,” Francis ought to glimpse Him among those with fewest rights and allies today. Yes, unborn children, of course. But Francis has shown a strange aversion to pro-life political leaders from the U.S. to Hungary and even his native Argentina. Francis’ other political interests seem to him to outweigh the unborn, as if the prospects of economic migrants and doubtful climate policies were more urgent than willful murder.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Shocking as it seems, let’s set the unborn aside for a moment. Who’s next on the list of human beings, images of God for whom Christ came to die, whom the World has seen fit to forget? Surely it’s the Uyghur Muslims who live under Chinese occupation. And in the midst of his frequent, long lists of humanitarian crises, the Uyghurs never get mentioned. Human rights activist Benedict Rogers has called Francis out for this willful omission. He points to Francis’ Urbi et Orbi address on Christmas Day
when he yet again failed to mention the genocide of the Uyghurs, the persecution of Christians in China, the destruction of Hong Kong’s freedoms, forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience, the crackdown on all forms of civil society or free expression, atrocities in Tibet and other human rights violations perpetrated by the Chinese Communist Party regime. … Pope Francis mentioned the Uyghurs briefly — for the very first time and in the mildest of mild passing references — in his new book Let Us Dream: The Path to a Better Future, he has said nothing further since. And Bejing reacted furiously even to that very modest comment. But is the pope seriously going to allow himself to be cowed by Xi Jinping’s fury and censor out references to some of the world’s gravest human tragedies just because they occur in China? Seriously?
The Vatican’s Molotov/Ribbentrop Pact with China
It’s worse than Rogers is even willing to say. The secret deal that Francis sent now-disgraced child-molester Theodore McCarrick to make with the Chinese regime was less a peace treaty than an alliance. It resulted, whistleblowers report, in backdoor secret payments of billions to the Vatican. As leading Chinese Catholics such as Cardinal Joseph Zen complained, the deal made religious freedom even scarcer in China. Chinese Christians face worse persecution now than they did before. Meanwhile, more than a million peaceful Uyghur Muslims live in concentration camps. They work as slave laborers producing Nike sneakers, Apple phones, and even picking cotton. Uyghurs are subject to atheist indoctrination, forced marriages, forced abortions, and — even more grotesquely — vivisection.
That’s right, Forbes Magazine has documented that the Chinese regime steals valuable human organs from living political prisoners. Then it sells them for millions on the international black market. Billionaires who ruined their livers from too much Dom Perignon can now replace them with those torn from imprisoned believers (Christian and Muslim).
The Vatican had an excellent opportunity to address this. Last year, its chief authority on Catholic social teaching, Bishop Marcelo Sorondo, spoke to a conference of China’s organ harvesters (i.e., thieves). Did he boldly, like John the Baptist, speak truth to power? Sadly, he didn’t. Instead he used that ghoulish occasion to praise the Chinese regime, and suggest a papal visit.
It Is Expedient that the Uyghurs Die
Does Pope Francis really believe that it’s expedient that one of the earth’s peoples, the Uyghurs, be tormented and erased, for the sake of achieving all his other humanitarian goals?
We hope not. We ask Pope Francis to break his pusillanimous silence on China’s abuses. We ask Francis’ representatives in America, especially Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C., to speak as well. Cardinal Gregory could do this quite easily, taking an Uber across town on Dec. 29 to the U.S. State Department. There from 1-3 p.m. the elected representatives of the Uyghur people will join human rights activists of every faith. Their goal? To get the U.S. to designate China’s efforts to eliminate the Uyghurs as an ongoing act of genocide.
Depart From Me, You Cursed
History is watching, Your Holiness. On which side would you like to be remembered? Christ is watching, Jorge Bergoglio. What will you hear from Him on the day of Judgment? God forbid it is this:
‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ (Matt. 25: 41-43)
Jason Jones is a senior contributor to The Stream. He is a film producer, author, activist and human rights worker. You can follow him at @JasonJonesShow.
John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream, and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism.
Together, Jones and Zmirak wrote The Race to Save Our Century.


thestream--2020-12-29--Illegal Immigrants in Virginia to Get ‘Driver Privilege’ Cards

Illegal immigrants will be able to apply for driver privilege cards in Virginia starting Jan. 1 , 2021 , according to the state ’ s Department of Motor Vehicles .
Advocates of the permits claim the issue is in the interest of public safety , NBC Washington reported .
Virginia ’ s General Assembly , which has a Democratic majority , passed the legislation allowing the cards in March .
Noncitizens will be able to apply for driver privilege cards if they are a resident of Virginia ; if they have reported income from Virginia sources in the last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and if their driving privilege is not suspended or revoked in Virginia or elsewhere , according to the DMV .
The state-issued driver privilege cards can not be used for entering federal buildings or boarding flights since they are not REAL ID compliant , according to the DMV .
Applicants are also not eligible to receive commercial driver ’ s licenses or formal identification cards .
Driver privilege card applicants must provide two forms of identification and two proofs of residency in Virginia , according to the DMV .
Applicants also have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or their taxpayer identification number and their tax return documentation .
Applicants must pass a vision test and some will need to take a two-part road knowledge exam and driving test , according to the DMV .
The exams are only given in English , so applicants are allowed to have a translator present .
The driver privilege card is valid for two years and the application fee costs $ 50 , according to the DMV .
Supporters of the permits are concerned the identification will make illegal immigrants more susceptible to detention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ traffic stops , the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported .
Meanwhile , Federation for American Immigration Reform spokesman Matthew Tragesser previously told The Daily Caller News Foundation : “ Giving any form of driving privileges to illegal aliens not only undermines public safety but national security as well.
” “ Providing these cards incentivizes more illegal immigration , rewards law-breakers , and jeopardizes our national security , ” Tragesser continued .
The cards look slightly different than normal Virginia licenses and provide information about the illegal immigrants to the DMV .
Content created by The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience .
For licensing opportunities of our original content , please contact licensing @ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

Illegal immigrants will be able to apply for driver privilege cards in Virginia starting Jan. 1, 2021, according to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles.
Advocates of the permits claim the issue is in the interest of public safety, NBC Washington reported. Virginia’s General Assembly, which has a Democratic majority, passed the legislation allowing the cards in March.
Noncitizens will be able to apply for driver privilege cards if they are a resident of Virginia; if they have reported income from Virginia sources in the last year or were claimed as a dependent; and if their driving privilege is not suspended or revoked in Virginia or elsewhere, according to the DMV.
Virginia’s new driver privilege cards for noncitizens bring a mix of relief and anxiety to advocates of immigrants rights.https://t.co/SjvGii69Xa — WTOP (@WTOP) December 26, 2020
The state-issued driver privilege cards cannot be used for entering federal buildings or boarding flights since they are not REAL ID compliant, according to the DMV. Applicants are also not eligible to receive commercial driver’s licenses or formal identification cards.
Driver privilege card applicants must provide two forms of identification and two proofs of residency in Virginia, according to the DMV. Applicants also have to show proof of their Social Security number or their taxpayer identification number and their tax return documentation.
Applicants must pass a vision test and some will need to take a two-part road knowledge exam and driving test, according to the DMV. The exams are only given in English, so applicants are allowed to have a translator present.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The driver privilege card is valid for two years and the application fee costs $50, according to the DMV.
Supporters of the permits are concerned the identification will make illegal immigrants more susceptible to detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers during traffic stops, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.
Meanwhile, Federation for American Immigration Reform spokesman Matthew Tragesser previously told The Daily Caller News Foundation: “Giving any form of driving privileges to illegal aliens not only undermines public safety but national security as well.”
“Providing these cards incentivizes more illegal immigration, rewards law-breakers, and jeopardizes our national security,” Tragesser continued.
The cards look slightly different than normal Virginia licenses and provide information about the illegal immigrants to the DMV.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].