August 2021 AD

Section 230 Fraud

Our rightful President Trump has been censored in his free speech. They absolutely crossed the line and made this a national security issue when the President of the United States cannot communicate with "We the People".

Hence, President Trump had every right to file a historic lawsuit against the social mass media giants.

Why?

All because of
“Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material"

The Federal government wrote a law that allows social media companies to censor anything they decide is "offensive", whether or not such material is constitutionally protected

And the Federal government issued them immunity from lawsuits over it if done as a "good Samaritan".

In other words, the government granted private businesses the right to censor that that they themselves could not do.

Section 230 Facially Violates 1st Amendment by Sub-Contracting Censorship

By Jim Hoft
Published July 8, 2021 at 10:07am
457 Comments

Imagine that you are an average residential consumer of electricity from your utility.

Suppose you are politically motivated and send out emails to your friends, family, and your email list containing non-violent unquestionably 1st Amendment-constitutionally-protected speech.

How would you feel if a newly created person called the “Human content monitor” of your supposedly neutral electric utility unilaterally decided that you were engaging in “objectionable” activities, and without notice or hearing turned off all power to your apartment?

You’d sue the electric company and the government on the basis that the electric company is a quasi-government-empowered entity that is violating your 1st Amendment right to free speech.

One should be able to sue the social media company on the basis that the social media company is a quasi-government-empowered entity that is violating your 1st Amendment. But guess what? The “Good Samaritan” Section 230 of the “Communications Decency Act” (“CDA”) empowers all the left-wing tech companies to quash your platform access merely because they believe “in good faith” that your posts are “otherwise objectionable.”

The supposed “good Samaritan” provision has, in fact, become the incarnation of the Orwellian 1984 Ministry of Truth. The United States Government has unconstitutionally “sub-contracted” the infinite power of total censorship to quasi-governmentally-empowered companies in clear facial violation of the 1st Amendment.

Here is 47 U.S. Code § 230 of the CDA – “Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material,” which states, in full:

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2)Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

In section 2 of Section 230, the government is subcontracting out the unconstitutional power to censor “constitutionally protected” speech to the quasi-governmentally-mandated internet companies. However, if under the 1st Amendment, the United States does not have the right to censor “constitutionally protected” speech in the first place, how is it constitutional for the government to sub-contract the power to censor to a quasi-governmentally-empowered private company?

There are other arguments that I will attend to in later articles. Those issues include the claim that the internet companies who politically tilt the scales of content are, de facto, becoming “publishers” in violation of Section 230. In addition, a tri-partite monopoly has developed between Google, Facebook, and Twitter. The result is that not only is Section 230 facially unconstitutional, it is, as applied, unconstitutional in that the government has sub-contracted the power to censor the entire United States of America to a single three-headed monopoly.

The Christian Solution

Section 230 Facially Violates 1st Amendment by Sub-Contracting Censorship