Here's what the a$$hole wrote to me on after I wrote his office in support of repealing section 230!
Thank you for your correspondence regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate knowing your views.
The Communications Decency Act, which I supported, was part of the larger Telecommunications Act of 1996 and appropriately regulated obscene and pornographic material on the Internet. This Act has made the Internet a safer place for Americans, while still allowing it to be a free and open forum to share ideas and perspectives. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect interactive internet platforms from liability for user-created content. It was the intent of Congress to protect the freedom of speech of citizens and allow Internet platforms to thrive.
Since the passage of Section 230 more than twenty years ago, the Internet has changed significantly. Social media companies and platforms like Facebook and Twitter have come to dominate the Internet landscape, as well as change how people communicate on a daily basis. In 2018, Congress enacted the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, which I cosponsored. This legislation closed a loophole in Section 230 so that online sex traffickers could be held accountable for breaking the law.
Today, under Section 230, social medial platforms have the power to censor who they choose with few, if any, legal ramifications or consequences. The censoring of conservative voices is particularly concerning. I am concerned that the unaccountable actions taken by technology and social media companies is violating the freedom of speech protections guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution.
On May 28, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order calling for the Federal Communications Commission to increase regulations for Internet platforms protected by Section 230. This executive order would hold companies accountable for the content they censor. On October 15, the FCC announced they would clarify the meaning of Section 230 and how its liability shield protects social media companies.
On October 28, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing with the CEOs of Google, Twitter and Facebook to testify on Section 230. On November 17, the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee after Twitter and Facebook limited the spread of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden.
I strongly support President Trump’s effort to fully repeal Section 230, and its “Good Samaritan” provision. The “Good Samaritan” provision allows for “good faith” efforts to restrict objectionable content. However, instead of focusing on removing unquestionably harmful content, like ISIS propaganda videos, Twitter and other liberal social media companies are actively deciding and censoring content posted by users. Censorship is already happening for Americans due to their political beliefs without transparency or recourse. President Trump is right – we need to fully repeal Section 230.
The president knows that I agree with him 100 percent on the need for a full repeal of Section 230. I have made that clear publicly as well. It is unfortunate that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle disagree with the need for a full repeal – but, because of that, it was impossible to add a repeal of Section 230 to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) due to objections from members integral to finalizing the NDAA conference report who do not agree with full repeal. If we included Section 230, we would have no NDAA. Without an NDAA, our troops would not get paid, their families would suffer and our national security would be compromised. This is why we have passed an NDAA the last 59 years – and I don’t intend to break that streak.
For the past four years, I have worked hand in hand with President Trump to rebuild our military, support our troops and defend American families. Under his leadership, we have made gains in our national security that would not have been possible under any other president and this year’s NDAA continues that work.
I will continue to support efforts that protect Americans’ freedom of speech and from those who intend to harm us. Again, thank you for sharing your views on Section 230. If you are interested in following my work in the Senate, I encourage you to sign up for my online newsletter by visiting: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsletter/sign-up.
Still waiting for my reply from him. Its all lip service the only fix is to not override veto that forces others to give in. Why does right always give in?
They know that we never put up a fight! Most on the right have jobs and families and responsibilities so it’s difficult for us to stop everything and riot in the streets. But you can only push us so far. To be a conservative means to conserve the constitution. When they start tearing that apart, then they will see the wrath of the conservative and it’s not breaking windows or setting cars on fire!
Here's what the a$$hole wrote to me on after I wrote his office in support of repealing section 230!
Thank you for your correspondence regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. As your voice in Washington, I appreciate knowing your views.
The Communications Decency Act, which I supported, was part of the larger Telecommunications Act of 1996 and appropriately regulated obscene and pornographic material on the Internet. This Act has made the Internet a safer place for Americans, while still allowing it to be a free and open forum to share ideas and perspectives. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect interactive internet platforms from liability for user-created content. It was the intent of Congress to protect the freedom of speech of citizens and allow Internet platforms to thrive.
Since the passage of Section 230 more than twenty years ago, the Internet has changed significantly. Social media companies and platforms like Facebook and Twitter have come to dominate the Internet landscape, as well as change how people communicate on a daily basis. In 2018, Congress enacted the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, which I cosponsored. This legislation closed a loophole in Section 230 so that online sex traffickers could be held accountable for breaking the law.
Today, under Section 230, social medial platforms have the power to censor who they choose with few, if any, legal ramifications or consequences. The censoring of conservative voices is particularly concerning. I am concerned that the unaccountable actions taken by technology and social media companies is violating the freedom of speech protections guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution.
On May 28, 2020, President Trump issued an executive order calling for the Federal Communications Commission to increase regulations for Internet platforms protected by Section 230. This executive order would hold companies accountable for the content they censor. On October 15, the FCC announced they would clarify the meaning of Section 230 and how its liability shield protects social media companies.
On October 28, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing with the CEOs of Google, Twitter and Facebook to testify on Section 230. On November 17, the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee after Twitter and Facebook limited the spread of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden.
I strongly support President Trump’s effort to fully repeal Section 230, and its “Good Samaritan” provision. The “Good Samaritan” provision allows for “good faith” efforts to restrict objectionable content. However, instead of focusing on removing unquestionably harmful content, like ISIS propaganda videos, Twitter and other liberal social media companies are actively deciding and censoring content posted by users. Censorship is already happening for Americans due to their political beliefs without transparency or recourse. President Trump is right – we need to fully repeal Section 230.
The president knows that I agree with him 100 percent on the need for a full repeal of Section 230. I have made that clear publicly as well. It is unfortunate that Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle disagree with the need for a full repeal – but, because of that, it was impossible to add a repeal of Section 230 to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) due to objections from members integral to finalizing the NDAA conference report who do not agree with full repeal. If we included Section 230, we would have no NDAA. Without an NDAA, our troops would not get paid, their families would suffer and our national security would be compromised. This is why we have passed an NDAA the last 59 years – and I don’t intend to break that streak.
For the past four years, I have worked hand in hand with President Trump to rebuild our military, support our troops and defend American families. Under his leadership, we have made gains in our national security that would not have been possible under any other president and this year’s NDAA continues that work.
I will continue to support efforts that protect Americans’ freedom of speech and from those who intend to harm us. Again, thank you for sharing your views on Section 230. If you are interested in following my work in the Senate, I encourage you to sign up for my online newsletter by visiting: http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsletter/sign-up.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe United States Senator
Still waiting for my reply from him. Its all lip service the only fix is to not override veto that forces others to give in. Why does right always give in?
They know that we never put up a fight! Most on the right have jobs and families and responsibilities so it’s difficult for us to stop everything and riot in the streets. But you can only push us so far. To be a conservative means to conserve the constitution. When they start tearing that apart, then they will see the wrath of the conservative and it’s not breaking windows or setting cars on fire!