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.

President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the D.C. Circuit to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. This is the fifth post on her nomination. It analyzes what Judge Jackson told the Senate Judiciary Committee and whether what she said is consistent with her judicial record. It also details how Senate Democrats have dealt with nominees who have preached a judicial philosophy of originalism. The first post detailed who Judge Jackson is and what President Biden wants in a Supreme Court nominee. The second post examined and critiqued her opinion in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn (D.D.C. 2019) where she held the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn was enforceable in federal court. The third post provided 25 questions for Senators to ask Judge Jackson at her confirmation hearing. The fourth post analyzed the originalist and textualist records of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees.

President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the D.C. Circuit to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. This is the fourth post on her nomination. It provides an analysis of the originalist and textualist records of President Trump's Supreme Court nominees. The next and final post will detail Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing, and compare her answers and record with President Trump's nominees. The first post detailed who Judge Jackson is and what President Biden wants in a Supreme Court nominee. The second post examined and critiqued her opinion in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn (D.D.C. 2019) where she held the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn was enforceable in federal court. The third post provided 25 questions for Senators to ask Judge Jackson at her confirmation hearing.

President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the D.C. Circuit to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. This is the third post on her nomination. It provides twenty-five questions that Senators should ask at her confirmation hearing. The first post detailed who Judge Jackson is and what President Biden wants in a Supreme Court nominee. The second post examined and critiqued her opinion in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn (D.D.C. 2019) where she held the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn was enforceable in federal court.

President Biden has nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the D.C. Circuit to replace Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. This is the second post on her nomination. It examines and critiques her opinion in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn (D.D.C. 2019) where she held the House Judiciary Committee's subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn was enforceable in federal court. The first post examining who Judge Jackson is and what President Biden wants in a Supreme Court nominee can be found here.