As FreedomWorks takes a new position on §230, to date, we have published two pieces that provide important context to this discussion. The first detailed why the statute was passed, the short congressional debates, and what the statute says in plain English. The second detailed how courts have misconstrued the statutory text that has led us to the position we find ourselves in today. Before our final post, which will detail solutions and possible ways forward, this post will respond to several arguments we have seen in response to our first two posts.

This is the second of three posts examining Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, commonly known as §230. While the law was enacted with the best of intentions to allow the internet to flourish, it has been misconstrued by courts for decades and is being taken advantage of by Big Tech companies. This post examines how the courts have wrongfully interpreted §230, straying far from the plain meaning of the text. The first post examined the events that led to §230’s enactment, its short legislative history, and what the law actually says. The final post will consider solutions to fixing §230, and which might be the most advantageous from a constitutional and policy perspective.

This is the first of three posts examining Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, commonly known as § 230. While the law was enacted with the best of intentions to allow the internet to flourish, it has been misconstrued by courts for decades and is being taken advantage of by big tech companies. This post examines the events that led to § 230 being enacted, the short legislative history, and what the law actually says. The next post will examine how courts have wrongfully interpreted § 230, straying far away from the plain meaning of its unambiguous text. The final post will consider several solutions to fixing § 230, and which might be the most advantageous from a constitutional and policy perspective.

What if you couldn’t speak your mind or express your opinion? What if you were punished for disagreeing with others around you? On college campuses across America, this is a reality.

The Big Picture

On behalf of FreedomWorks’ activist community, I urge you to contact your senators and ask them to cosponsor the Don’t Weaponize the IRS Act, S. 1777, introduced by Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). This bill would protect free speech and shield Americans from being targeted due to their political beliefs by codifying the May 2020 Treasury Department rule that eliminated the requirement of 501(c)(4) organizations to disclose donors’ personal information to the IRS.

With some conservatives flirting with expanding antitrust enforcement to punish Silicon Valley, they risk playing into Senator Amy Klobuchar’s radical vision for government control.

Welcome to the new and improved Regulatory Action Center (RAC) Review! RAC proudly keeps you up to date on what we’re up to and what we’re keeping our eyes on here in the swamp. We offer resources for you to get involved in the rulemaking process to hold unelected bureaucrats accountable and occasionally offer praise in the event they have a good impulse. We will also highlight the incredible work our activists have done to advance the principles of smaller government, lower taxes, free markets, personal liberty, and the rule of law. For more ways to get involved and stay informed, check the links at the bottom of this post.

After yet another Congressional hearing on antitrust enforcement against big tech, it is being widely reported that a forthcoming report by Democrats on the Subcommittee on Antitrust will recommend breaking up several digital economy titans. This seemed inevitable; Chairman Cicilline (D-R.I.)’s remarks during the previous hearing, and for years prior, make clear that the desire to break up Big Tech was not contingent upon evidence gathered from hearings. What is disturbing from a conservative standpoint is the possibility that some Republicans are likely to at least partially join those calls.