CT Blue

The Republicans are making a deeply dishonest argument.

I know, every argument they make is deeply dishonest, so I really have to be a little more specific.

As the FCC gets closer to restoring net neutrality, a new and bizarre GOP talking point has emerged. It goes something like this: if you’re going to restore some modest rules holding telecom monopolies accountable, you just have to dismantle a law that protects free speech on the internet! This of course makes no coherent sense whatsoever, but that’s not stopping those looking to demolish Section 230, a law that is integral to protecting speech online.

via Above the Law

This is an interesting piece of dishonesty, because it might be an instance in which the Democrats should call their bluff.

As I understand it, Section 230 grants various content providers on the web protections from libel and slander actions that other publishers do not have. The underlying rationale makes sense, and made even more sense when the statute was passed, as the harm that social networks could cause was not yet obvious. The difficulty of policing such large volumes of speech was just one of many factors that led to Section 230. A newspaper can easily police its own content, but it’s not so easy when the content is uploaded by millions of users a day. In any event, the net result is that Facebook, for instance, is not liable for most if not all of the misinformation, libel, slander, and conspiracy theorizing that takes place on its platform. If it were a socially responsible company it would do its best to make sure that its platform was not abused, but it is owned by Mark Zuckerberg.

The Republicans have chosen to try to make “Big Tech” out to be the bogeyman, but I ask you, who is most likely to suffer if “Big Tech” has to police the content on its sites, and cleanse them of hate speech, misinformation, libel, and incitements to violence? Wouldn’t it be the political party and ideology that traffics in hate speech, misinformation, libel, and incitements to violence?

Personally, I think it might be productive to take another look at Section 230, in light of the way in which it has shielded actors like Facebook from the obligation to police the content it inflicts on the world. There’s no question that there are competing interests involved, but it certainly appears that there may be a need to impose some obligations on content providers that would protect the public’s interest in decreasing hate speech, misinformation, libel, and incitements to violence. One can certainly make a cogent argument that the unfettered “speech” in which the rioters and their Führer engaged prior to the insurrection was a necessary precondition to their attempt to overthrow the government. We do have a right to protect ourself from people who want to overthrow the government, even at the stage when their planning is taking place. I won’t even bother to explain why cries of “free speech” are inapplicable in this context.

So, while the Republican’s arguments make no sense, which they almost never do, it might not be such a bad idea to take them up on it. It would be interesting to see how long it takes for them to come up with some way of attacking Democrats for daring to even consider amending Section 230, which will, overnight, transmogrify into the guardian of our liberties.