Every couple of months, Big Tech executives get dragged in front of congress to be questioned about their ideologically driven censorship of conservatives.
A few Senators present the billionaire CEO’s with irrefutable evidence of their political and ideological Big Tech-enabled censorship to which the CEO’s give a canned answer lying about the neutrality of their platforms.
Townhall journalist Mia Cathell recently noticed that Twitter was adding the following “helpful” and “important context” citing “high quality sources” to the story being reported of 11 peaceful pro-life protesters indicted by the FBI for praying and reading scripture outside of an abortion clinic in Tennessee.
The warning summarizes the articles it is providing for “context” with the following message:
The 11 who were arrested did violate the FACE Act by intentionally blocking people, some with force, from entering/exiting the Carefem Health Clinic in Tennessee. Despite their advanced age, they assembled via Facebook, which is the reason for the conspiracy charges.Twitter warning attached to Mia Cathell’s viral tweets on the arrest of 11 peaceful protesters.
Never mind the fact that the assertions are factually wrong, the warning also seems to disregard the American age old tradition of considering people innocent until proven guilty.
Section 230 Immunity
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was passed a few years after the FACE Act in 1996 and was intended to protect internet platforms from being held responsible for the content they posted on their platforms.
The idea was that free speech would flourish only if these internet companies were allowed the freedom to post the content created by the users without being responsible for the content of the posts.
In exchange for this immunity, the internet companies promised to not act as publishers who edit and censor the content of the conversations.
The problem is that there was an exception for content moderation whereby the internet companies could censor content under the guise of necessary moderation. The content moderation language is so broad as to allow Big Tech CEO’s to operate with almost absolute immunity.
Section 230(c)(2) provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”, as long as they act “in good faith” in this action.Wikipedia citing Section 230 (c)(2)
“Otherwise objectionable” content is a term so vague and open to interpretation that Big Tech has included the views and statements of President Donald Trump and a very long list of cancelled conservatives as objectionable but not those of the Ayatollah Khomeini, ANTIFA and a laundry list of leftist agitators.
To date, internet companies have gotten away with no liability for sex trafficking while interfering with elections in the most cynical of ways imaginable.
The latest editorializing by Twitter is just another example in a long list of Big Tech tyrannical supression of the truth and of conservatives.