TechFreedom Profile picture
Aug 17, 2021 6 tweets 3 min read Read on X
1/ Last week, two business school profs tried their hand at #Section230 and the First Amendment. It went about as well as you’d expect.

They claim that 230 conflicts with itself, but that’s because they don’t understand that law, or how it works.

hbr.org/2021/08/its-ti… Image
2/ They make bold claims without backing them up about how social media platforms don’t have incentive to protect their brands by moderating content. In reality, platforms are widely held accountable for content they allow, and respond to public pressure all the time! Image
3/ If you accepted this statement uncritically, it might seem persuasive. But that “consensus” doesn’t actually exist. Democrats want platforms to remove *more* content, and Republicans want them to remove less. Image
4/ They take a proposal for amending Section 230 as “good,” but predictably fail to grapple with any of the nuances of practicality or feasibility. Image
5/ And as if to drive home the point that they simply don’t understand what they’re talking about, they get the First Amendment very… wrong. There is no First Amendment exception for speech that “induces harm” or even “encourages illegal activity.” Image
6/ There’s room for good faith debate, but making baseless, exaggerated claims and regurgitating others’ ideas does little to actually advance any meaningful dialogue.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with TechFreedom

TechFreedom Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TechFreedom

Aug 25, 2023
1/ TODAY the Fifth Circuit REVERSED a trial court decision that drastically curtailed First Amendment protections for satirical online speech.

TechFreedom was proud to team up with @EFF, in an amicus brief urging this result.

techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
Image
2/ In March 2020, Waylon Bailey made a joke on Facebook comparing the COVID-19 pandemic to a zombie apocalypse.

Police officers stormed Bailey’s home and arrested him for violating a state anti-terrorism law.
Image
Image
3/ The trial court ruled (sua sponte) that Bailey's post was not 1A protected speech.

That was obviously incorrect -- as the Fifth Circuit today holds. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jun 22, 2021
Tomorrow, @HouseJudiciary will mark up 5 bills to regulate big tech platforms. Two essentially impose common-carrier-style requirements, but are totally unmoored from basic common carriage principles

We explain our concerns in this letter: techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
1) the American Choice and Innovation Online Act (HR 3816) & the Ending Platform Monopolies Act (HR 3825) both apply broadly to the offerings of the five biggest tech companies just because they're big

That's not how common carriage works. It's not about size or market cap...
1a) HR 3816 replicates the "no reasonable discrimination" provision at the heart of common carriage (eg 47 USC 202(a)) while HR 3825 goes far beyond structural separation imposed on common carriers

Both bills use common carrier concepts in radically new ways
Read 8 tweets
Apr 21, 2021
Today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing will explore competition in app stores

To understand the enormous value created by app stores, you have to look back at the world before they existed

We explain how app stores benefitted both users & developers
techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
The value app stores create isn't primarily economic: it's ensuring user trust by protecting the privacy of user data, the security of their devices, and even users' physical safety against those who might stalk them
App stores are especially important for families, protecting kids against a variety of threats, and empowering parents to decide what apps & media are appropriate for their kids

Parents simply did not have such powerful control before app stores launched in 2008
Read 18 tweets
Oct 13, 2020
Justice Thomas jumped into the #Section230 debate to embrace GOP arguments for narrowing protections for content moderation. He might think differently in a case where the issues he raised were actually briefed by both sides—unlike this very narrow case

techfreedom.org/justice-thomas…
Thomas often issues such statements when SCOTUS decides not to take a case—to vent his frustrations about the state of the law

But this is the first time SCOTUS has ever considered taking a case involving #Section230. The briefs here did not even address the issues Thomas raises
Justice Thomas is free to call for fuller briefing on Section 230’s meaning in, as he says, “an appropriate case,” but this is not that case. Justice Thomas had no need to express his own views, in extensive dicta, without the benefit of the briefing he acknowledges is needed.
Read 19 tweets
Jun 5, 2020
Sen @HawleyMO is so painfully wrong about #Section230, someone oughta sue Yale Law School for his opinions

Just kidding. That’s not how law works! But it’s about as nuts as suing websites for what users say

Let’s start with why Rep. Chris Cox (𝙍-CA) wrote 230 back in 1995...
#Section230 protects “tech platforms” just as it protects National Review’s site, or a user’s (ahem, Trump's) retweet of someone else’s defamatory statements

230 DOES Internet media differently from other print & broadcasting, because they ARE different
Traditional publishers review content pre-publication but Internet media just can’t b/c:
—SCALE: billions of pieces of content created daily
—SPEED: much content is real-time

Instead they rely on inherently imperfect content moderation AFTER “publication”
techdirt.com/blog/?tag=cont…
Read 23 tweets
May 28, 2020
BREAKING: Trump’s new Executive Order purports to protect free speech online techfreedom.org/wp-content/upl…

That’s not how the Constitution works. The First Amendment protects Twitter from Trump—not Trump from Twitter

And #Section230 doesn’t change that

Here’s why...
WEBSITES AREN’T PUBLIC FORA: Supreme Court jurisprudence and case law DOES NOT support the EO’s claims that they are. The EO cites two cases that don’t apply to social media platforms:
1) Pruneyard (1980) was limited to shopping malls (very different from websites) and definitely wouldn’t be upheld by the Court today anyway, as made clear in Johnson v Twitter (2018)
2) Packingham (2017) is about restrictions on Internet imposed by STATE LAW, not private actors
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(