When a D.C. Circuit judge causally cites your and ⁦@rachelbovard⁩’s articles on a ⁦@FedSoc⁩ panel to share skepticism that gov’t jawboning is the reason #BigTech censors certain political views. 🙌 Here’s my article Judge Katsas refers to: thehill.com/opinion/civil-…

In light of the Gonzalez v. Google oral argument, I thought I'd re-up some of my views on the ways the Court could go. Put simply, the Court is evaluating what does the text of Section 230(c)(1) actually say and do? Pretty loaded question, indeed.

newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-goo… Let's start with the basics. Section 230 (c)(1) says that "[n]o 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."

In Gonzalez v. Google, SCOTUS has a chance to clarify #Section230's meaning. Courts interpret Section 230 as shielding #BigTech from practically all civil liability when 3rd party content is at issue. I argue that nothing in the text supports that reading. newsweek.com/gonzalez-v-goo… One option to rectify this is that tech companies should only be protected from causes of action that target a speaker or publisher, such as defamation suits—as opposed to protecting them from enforcement actions via federal civil statutes.