Six Principles for Misunderstanding Free Speech and Section 230

ConclusionIt is the First Amendment, not Section 230, that allows social media companies to disassociate with users and moderate content. Although often discussed in debates about the state of social media, Section 230 is a  liability shield, not a law that allows websites to remove content. Section 230 changes will do nothing to infringe on website’s right under the First Amendment to remove content. They will likely make Silicon Valley companies more dominant.At the heart of freedom of speech is the freedom of association. The right of a  white supremacist to write and submit an op‐​ed toThe Washington Post is as important a  right as the right ofThe Washington Postto decline to publish the oped. We see no contradiction in defending the right of individuals to write what they want while also defending the right of private companies to disassociate with content they consider objectionable. The freedom of speech does not entail an entitlement to a  platform for that speech.Fortunately, the Internet is much larger than Silicon Valley ’s “Big Tech” giants. Thanks in large part to Section 230, there are many, many venues for Americans to write and share their beliefs. Mastodon, the InterPlanetary File System, LBRY, Bitchute, Diaspora, are only some examples of alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube that offer users a  variety of different content moderation guidelines. We fear that Section 230 changes will make it harder for these services to effectivel...

Source: Cato-at-liberty - February 17, 2021 Category: American Health Authors: Matthew Feeney, Will Duffield Source Type: blogs