SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (746353)5/28/2021 6:38:27 AM
From: carranza25 Recommendations

Recommended By
alanrs
fred woodall
pak73
pheilman_
Tom Clarke

  Read Replies (3) of 794146
 
Great article.

Seems that Section 230 is subject to a constitutional attack because Congress has illegally delegated the power to regulate speech to the big tech companies. By immunizing them from liability, Section 230 has in essence granted them the power to do what the government cannot do, i. e., control the market in free speech and a free press. I cannot imagine that this was what Congress intended when it enacted Section 230.

Clarence Thomas has hinted that he’d welcome such a suit. The votes at the Supreme Court are presently there, but there is no guarantee that Biden will fail in packing the Court.

freebeacon.com

Take away the immunity, and big tech censorship will disappear. The legal attack on big tech is something that has to take place soon.

The same argument can be applied on antitrust grounds to attack Apple’s refusal to sell Parler’s app, bankrupting it. It was done ostensibly because Parler promoted hate speech. However, under antitrust law Congress cannot delegate to another company the power to regulate a competitor, especially on grounds that violate the First Amendment.

It is even possible that an illegal preemption argument might work. The argument would be that state free speech laws have been illegally preempted by a federal law that limits the state’s right to guarantee free speech. Interesting argument that was cited by Justice Thomas. It is discussed in great detail here:

reason.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News