Unfortunately, many Republicans continue to misunderstand the issue at hand.
Prominent Republicans, most notably the president, have presented the repeal of Section 230, a foundational law in the formation of the modern internet that ensures that web platforms are not legally liable for content posted by users, as essential to reining in social media bias against conservatives. Some, such as Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, have portrayed the provision as a “subsidy” for Big Tech, likening it to an undeserved special favor like many others littered throughout American law.
It’s understandable that conservatives are often frustrated with social media companies’ predilection for fact-checking, flagging or removing posts on their platforms by conservatives. Majorities of Americans report believing that social media companies censor political viewpoints, while just under half believe that social media companies favor liberals over conservatives.
WATCH: BIDEN CLAIMS INFLATION WAS 9% WHEN HE GOT IN OFFICE
Nevertheless, repealing Section 230 is no way to address this. Section 230, though ostensibly a protection for social media companies themselves, is actually a protection for the users on their platforms.
Section 230 shields social media companies from being held liable for content published by others on their sites. That sounds like a legal protection for social media companies, which of course it is. But in the absence of Section 230, the consequences would fall on users posting on the sites hosted by social media companies, not the social media companies themselves.
WATCH VIVEK: "WHAT IS THE CRIME THAT DONALD TRUMP COMMITTED?"
Imagine you’re running a major social media site. If you would be held legally responsible for the views and opinions posted on your site, would you respond by bearing the brunt of lawsuit after lawsuit for what your users posted? Or would you aggressively police the opinions being expressed on your platform to avoid any hint of legal risk?
NIGHT OPERATION UNCOVERS THE TRAGIC FATE OF THREE MUSICAL FESTIVAL HOSTAGES IN GAZA TUNNEL
Conservatives opposed to Section 230 may counter by claiming that social media platforms are already policing views on their platforms. But this only further emphasizes the importance of the law — if conservatives see social media companies as targeting conservative opinions for censorship when they are shielded from litigation, imagine how much more aggressively conservative views would be regulated if legal action was on the table.
ANIMAL PRIDE: NBC'S UPCOMING 'QUEER PLANET' EXPOSES NATURE’S HIDDEN LGBTQ+ LIFE
Section 230 should therefore be seen as a crucial safeguard defending freedom of speech (the principle, not the Constitutional right that does not apply to a private company’s platform). Social media companies should be incentivized to host a broad range of views, not to censor any posts that could subject them to legal action.
Conservatives often specifically dislike Section 230’s “good faith” clause, which protects social media companies from liability for obscene, lewd, or inappropriate content removed in “good faith.” Republican Missouri Sen. Senator Josh Hawley recently introduced legislation intended to reduce the protections provided by this provision, believing it can give social media companies leeway to censor conservatives.
WILL BIDEN’S DEBATE DEMANDS TURN THE TIDE OR DROWN HIS CHANCES?
But even in the absence of Section 230, our judicial system would hold that social media companies maintain a Constitutional right to monitor content on their own platforms. Courts have consistently upheld this right on First Amendment grounds in recent years.
CAPITOL RECOGNITION: A TRUE AMERICAN EVANGELIST EARNS BIG HONOR...
The consequences of removing Section 230 are therefore clear: it would encourage risk-averse social media companies to police opinions on their platforms, while still providing no legal leg to stand on for conservatives to sue tech companies for censorship. It’s the equivalent of attempting to repair a car with an oil leak by removing all four wheels: unrelated to the actual problem, and harmful to boot.
NO SO MAGICAL: THE COPPERFIELD-EPSTEIN CONNECTION THAT'S RAISING EYEBROWS EVERYWHERE
Conservatives may dislike how social media companies manage their platforms, and they have every right to do so. Unfortunately, the belief that repealing Section 230 would provide the solution to these concerns is nothing but a fantasy — one that could have grave consequences for internet free speech.
UNBELIEVABLE! NEW OFFER ON TABLE FOR PRO-HAMAS PROTESTERS AT SUNY COLLEGE (VIDEO)
BIDEN’S HONORARY DEGREE: A SYMBOL OF DIVISION AT MOREHOUSE COLLEGE?
BATTLE LINES DRAWN: TEXAS' GOV. ABBOTT'S LATEST PARDON IGNITES FIERCE DEBATE
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICT PAYS BIG FOR DISMISSING CONSERVATIVE TEACHER
ERIC SWALWELL HAS A NEW WORD FOR GOP SUPPORTERS OF TRUMP...
THE DEADLY PRICE OF PROTESTING THE TALIBAN'S OPIUM BAN
WATCH: TUCKER CARLSON REVEALS NEAR-DEATH EXPERIENCE IN MIDDLE EAST
NANCY PELOSI IS NOT HAPPY WITH BIDEN'S DEBATE DECISION...
PRESIDENT’S POCKETS NOT AS DEEP AS YOU’D THINK—INSIDE THE 'BIDEN BUCKS' BREAKDOWN
NASHVILLE HOTEL CANCELS EVENT AFTER THREATS, BUT LOCAL SUPERHERO STEPS UP TO DOUBLE DOWN SUPPORT
THIS CONGRESSMAN HAS EVIDENCE THAT JOE BIDEN WAS "JACKED UP" BEFORE SOTU
EXPLOSIVE TRUMP VP RUMORS IGNITE AFTER POSSIBLE CANDIDATE DROPS HINTS...
NEW REPORT: SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ACCUSED OF SUPPORTING CONTROVERSIAL "STOP THE STEAL" MOVEMENT
Andrew Wilford is a policy analyst with the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to tax policy research and education at all levels of government.
This article was sourced from DailyCaller
Discover alternative ideas that will make you think
Engage in mind bending debate
Earn points, rise in rank, have fun
