At Manchin’s urging, though, it would require the government to offer oil & gas leases on federal land and in the Gulf of Mexico, albeit at a higher royalty rate. It also provides tax incentives for projects that capture carbon dioxide and new forms of energy like hydrogen.”
3/
- @AP The bill would impose a new fee on excess methane emissions from oil and gas drilling while giving fossil fuel companies access to more leases on federal lands and waters.” apnews.com/article/4d5d40…
4/
The bill also gives tax credits for nuclear power and carbon capture technology that oil companies such as Exxon Mobil have invested millions of dollars to advance.”- @AP
🧵⬇️ Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has begun his unconstitutional assault on a free press, challenging long-standing SCOTUS law upholding press freedoms in 1964 New Times v Sullivan, but the same law (HB991) discriminates against LGBTQ rights. It’s designed to silence dissent.
NY Times v Sullivan shaped press freedoms an held politician accountable even with unfavorable coverage they don’t agree with, not fines. it’s considered a basic pillar of the First Amendment. The case in a nutshell. ⬇️
nytimes.com/2023/02/10/us/… Our fringe-right SCOTUS may take away these rights, and bankrupt every media, including social media, allowing them to sue with much lower standards.
New York Times v Sullivan, 1964 - one of the most important First Amendment SCOTUS cases ever.
Our fringe-right court may take this right away. "Justice Clarence Thomas has written three times that he wants the Supreme Court to revisit Sullivan."
This is also the law DeSantis is trying to rewrite, which will effect free speech on social media and by bloggers - or anyone - even if they don't live in Florida. It's not *just* the press. It affects LGBTQ, gay rights, abortion speech. (See /3)
Democrats need to understand the 26 words that created the internet as we know it - Section 230 before the Supreme Court next week. There’s a reason GQP Sen. Josh Hawley wants it gutted.
There’s a reason (D) Sen. @RonWyden wrote it. Let’s break it down. It protects YOU.
2/
“We're talking about rewriting the legal rules that govern the fundamental architecture of the internet," - @EFF
—
Conservatives are using the case as a vehicle to rail against "Big Tech" firms & amplify claims ..platforms censor content based on political ideology.” - CBS
3/
It fact, it does just the opposite of what Hawley claims, who has taken several shots at the First Amendment and free speech,
A right-wing #SCOTUS has now agreed to hear a case that could literally change the 26 words that created the internet.
-
The internet will be a much different place if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 230. ➡️ (podcast)
- slate.com/podcasts/what-… ⬅️ @jkosseff via @Slate#1A
Section 230 effects social media, blogs, image sharing, forums and comment sections — any service that enables users to submit content. Literally every online platform that allows users to post information, share content, and comment relies on Section 230.
Sec. 230 ... is regarded as “the most important law in tech” because it encourages investment and innovation on the Internet by providing legal certainty to services that they will not be held liable for the speech or actions of third parties.'
Here are those 26 words, Section 230, Communication Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1996.
"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"