Still up watching Democrats fighting for this nation #SenBooker #SenMurphy #SenWelch #Democrats
@booker.senate.gov @chrismurphyct.bsky.social

techdirt.com headline Fri March 21, 2025 Democratic Senators Team Up With MAGA To Hand Trump A Censorship Machine

…strongest Senate allies to repeal Section 230-the law that both enables content moderation and protects websites from being sued into oblivion for hosting user speech. They appear to be doing this out of a deep misunderstanding of how the law works combined with an astounding naiveté about how this process will be used by the MAGA faithful. As early as next week, Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, plan to introduce a bill that would set an expiration date of Jan. 1, 2027, for Section 230, according to a congressional aide familiar with the bill's development. The senators have wide-ranging support from their respective parties: Republicans Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn and Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Amy Klobuchar have agreed to co-sponsor the bill. And two more Democrats, Richard Blumenthal and Peter Welch, have discussed joining as co-sponsors. If all goes according to plan, Durbin and Graham's proposal would be the first bipartisan bill introduced in Congress that could repeal what's often lauded as the 26 words that created the internet. To understand just how dangerous this move is, consider a law that Senator Amy Klobuchar - one of the supporters of this new bill - pushed just a few years ago. In 2021, she introduced legislation to amend Section 230 in a way that would allow the Health & Human Services Secretary to designate certain online content as "health misinformation," requiring websites to remove it.

The fundamental problem here is that these Senators don't understand what Section 230 actually does - or how its repeal would make their stated goals harder to achieve. Take the lead Democrat on this bill, Senator Dick Durbin, who has long demonstrated his confusion about the law. Just this week, in an interview with Capitol Fax (an Illinois political newsletter whose design is even more outdated than Techdirt's!) Durbin doubled down on his misunderstanding, revealing exactly how his confusion could lead to disaster: Isabel Miller: A first amendment lawyer said your plan to sunset Section 230 would stifle free speech. A reporter said that it would destroy the open internet. And my boss said that if 230 was repealed, it would put his website out of business. Why do you want to do this? Sen. Durbin: Because of the sexual exploitation on the internet. Isabel: Aren't there rules in place to stop that already? Sen. Durbin: Section 230 says the following: If your teenage daughter is exploited with images which I can't even describe here, on the internet, and she discovers it to her horror and goes to that internet, social media source and said, 'take them down,' there is no legal obligation for them to do so. Why? Because Section 230 says they can't be held liable for continuing to broadcast this filth at the expense of this poor girl and her family. That's why 230 has to be revisited. 20 years ago, it might have made sense. It doesn't make sense now. There is no reason why the people on the internet should get away with this, and what we say is, if they want to do that, then they're subject to being sued. I think that will slow down the trafficking in this terrible sexploitation.

Durbin's response perfectly encapsulates how dangerous this misunderstanding is. He claims Sec 230 prevents websites from being held accountable for "exploitation," when in reality 1. Every major platform already has robust policies for removing non-consensual intimate imagery, supported by industry-wide programs like NCMEC's Take It Down system & StopNCIl's hashing database. 2. These removal systems exist because of Sec 230, which explicitly protects platforms when they take down harmful content, making it reasonable for sites to make use of these efforts. Without 230's protections, platforms would face increased liability risks for any moderation attempts. 3. Most critically, Durbin confuses the actual criminals (who can and should be prosecuted) with the tools they misuse. It's like blaming the phone company for criminal conspiracies plotted over phone lines. This isn't just academic confusion - it's the kind of fundamental misunderstanding that could give the Trump administration unprecedented power to control online speech. The timing here is what makes this move particularly baffling-and dangerous. At the exact moment when Trump and his allies are systematically dismantling democratic institutions & attempting to silence critics, these D Senators want to hand them an incredibly powerful censorship tool. Here's what repealing Sec 230 would actually do: remove the law that explicitly protects websites when they resist government pressure to censor speech. Without those protections, the Trump administration would have far more leverage to force platforms to remove content they don't like - whether that's criticism of Trump, exposure of corruption, or information about voting rights. It can also allow them to pressure websites to host pro-MAGA or pro-Nazi content that sites might not wish to associate with. Think that's hyperbole? Consider what's already happening with all of the various attacks on the media & even law firms that have supported Democratic causes.

anyone remember how we used to think (D)s were for the people?

NOW not only do we have to plead our senate do ONE (just 1) thing to fight tyranny, we have to BEG THEM TO STOP COLLUDING 🤯DO NOT REPEAL 230 rn
@durbin.senate.gov @amyklobuchar.com @whitehouse.senate.gov @blumenthal.senate.gov #senwelch

techdirt.com headline Fri March 21, 2025 Democratic Senators Team Up With MAGA To Hand Trump A Censorship Machine

…strongest Senate allies to repeal Section 230-the law that both enables content moderation and protects websites from being sued into oblivion for hosting user speech. They appear to be doing this out of a deep misunderstanding of how the law works combined with an astounding naiveté about how this process will be used by the MAGA faithful. As early as next week, Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, plan to introduce a bill that would set an expiration date of Jan. 1, 2027, for Section 230, according to a congressional aide familiar with the bill's development. The senators have wide-ranging support from their respective parties: Republicans Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn and Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Amy Klobuchar have agreed to co-sponsor the bill. And two more Democrats, Richard Blumenthal and Peter Welch, have discussed joining as co-sponsors. If all goes according to plan, Durbin and Graham's proposal would be the first bipartisan bill introduced in Congress that could repeal what's often lauded as the 26 words that created the internet. To understand just how dangerous this move is, consider a law that Senator Amy Klobuchar - one of the supporters of this new bill - pushed just a few years ago. In 2021, she introduced legislation to amend Section 230 in a way that would allow the Health & Human Services Secretary to designate certain online content as "health misinformation," requiring websites to remove it.

The fundamental problem here is that these Senators don't understand what Section 230 actually does - or how its repeal would make their stated goals harder to achieve. Take the lead Democrat on this bill, Senator Dick Durbin, who has long demonstrated his confusion about the law. Just this week, in an interview with Capitol Fax (an Illinois political newsletter whose design is even more outdated than Techdirt's!) Durbin doubled down on his misunderstanding, revealing exactly how his confusion could lead to disaster: Isabel Miller: A first amendment lawyer said your plan to sunset Section 230 would stifle free speech. A reporter said that it would destroy the open internet. And my boss said that if 230 was repealed, it would put his website out of business. Why do you want to do this? Sen. Durbin: Because of the sexual exploitation on the internet. Isabel: Aren't there rules in place to stop that already? Sen. Durbin: Section 230 says the following: If your teenage daughter is exploited with images which I can't even describe here, on the internet, and she discovers it to her horror and goes to that internet, social media source and said, 'take them down,' there is no legal obligation for them to do so. Why? Because Section 230 says they can't be held liable for continuing to broadcast this filth at the expense of this poor girl and her family. That's why 230 has to be revisited. 20 years ago, it might have made sense. It doesn't make sense now. There is no reason why the people on the internet should get away with this, and what we say is, if they want to do that, then they're subject to being sued. I think that will slow down the trafficking in this terrible sexploitation.

Durbin's response perfectly encapsulates how dangerous this misunderstanding is. He claims Sec 230 prevents websites from being held accountable for "exploitation," when in reality 1. Every major platform already has robust policies for removing non-consensual intimate imagery, supported by industry-wide programs like NCMEC's Take It Down system & StopNCIl's hashing database. 2. These removal systems exist because of Sec 230, which explicitly protects platforms when they take down harmful content, making it reasonable for sites to make use of these efforts. Without 230's protections, platforms would face increased liability risks for any moderation attempts. 3. Most critically, Durbin confuses the actual criminals (who can and should be prosecuted) with the tools they misuse. It's like blaming the phone company for criminal conspiracies plotted over phone lines. This isn't just academic confusion - it's the kind of fundamental misunderstanding that could give the Trump administration unprecedented power to control online speech. The timing here is what makes this move particularly baffling-and dangerous. At the exact moment when Trump and his allies are systematically dismantling democratic institutions & attempting to silence critics, these D Senators want to hand them an incredibly powerful censorship tool. Here's what repealing Sec 230 would actually do: remove the law that explicitly protects websites when they resist government pressure to censor speech. Without those protections, the Trump administration would have far more leverage to force platforms to remove content they don't like - whether that's criticism of Trump, exposure of corruption, or information about voting rights. It can also allow them to pressure websites to host pro-MAGA or pro-Nazi content that sites might not wish to associate with. Think that's hyperbole? Consider what's already happening with all of the various attacks on the media & even law firms that have supported Democratic causes.

anyone remember how we used to think (D)s were for the people?

NOW not only do we have to plead our senate do ONE (just 1) thing to fight tyranny, we have to BEG THEM TO STOP COLLUDING 🤯DO NOT REPEAL 230 rn
@durbin.senate.gov @amyklobuchar.com @whitehouse.senate.gov @blumenthal.senate.gov #senwelch

techdirt.com headline Fri March 21, 2025 Democratic Senators Team Up With MAGA To Hand Trump A Censorship Machine

…strongest Senate allies to repeal Section 230-the law that both enables content moderation and protects websites from being sued into oblivion for hosting user speech. They appear to be doing this out of a deep misunderstanding of how the law works combined with an astounding naiveté about how this process will be used by the MAGA faithful. As early as next week, Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, plan to introduce a bill that would set an expiration date of Jan. 1, 2027, for Section 230, according to a congressional aide familiar with the bill's development. The senators have wide-ranging support from their respective parties: Republicans Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn and Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Amy Klobuchar have agreed to co-sponsor the bill. And two more Democrats, Richard Blumenthal and Peter Welch, have discussed joining as co-sponsors. If all goes according to plan, Durbin and Graham's proposal would be the first bipartisan bill introduced in Congress that could repeal what's often lauded as the 26 words that created the internet. To understand just how dangerous this move is, consider a law that Senator Amy Klobuchar - one of the supporters of this new bill - pushed just a few years ago. In 2021, she introduced legislation to amend Section 230 in a way that would allow the Health & Human Services Secretary to designate certain online content as "health misinformation," requiring websites to remove it.

The fundamental problem here is that these Senators don't understand what Section 230 actually does - or how its repeal would make their stated goals harder to achieve. Take the lead Democrat on this bill, Senator Dick Durbin, who has long demonstrated his confusion about the law. Just this week, in an interview with Capitol Fax (an Illinois political newsletter whose design is even more outdated than Techdirt's!) Durbin doubled down on his misunderstanding, revealing exactly how his confusion could lead to disaster: Isabel Miller: A first amendment lawyer said your plan to sunset Section 230 would stifle free speech. A reporter said that it would destroy the open internet. And my boss said that if 230 was repealed, it would put his website out of business. Why do you want to do this? Sen. Durbin: Because of the sexual exploitation on the internet. Isabel: Aren't there rules in place to stop that already? Sen. Durbin: Section 230 says the following: If your teenage daughter is exploited with images which I can't even describe here, on the internet, and she discovers it to her horror and goes to that internet, social media source and said, 'take them down,' there is no legal obligation for them to do so. Why? Because Section 230 says they can't be held liable for continuing to broadcast this filth at the expense of this poor girl and her family. That's why 230 has to be revisited. 20 years ago, it might have made sense. It doesn't make sense now. There is no reason why the people on the internet should get away with this, and what we say is, if they want to do that, then they're subject to being sued. I think that will slow down the trafficking in this terrible sexploitation.

Durbin's response perfectly encapsulates how dangerous this misunderstanding is. He claims Sec 230 prevents websites from being held accountable for "exploitation," when in reality 1. Every major platform already has robust policies for removing non-consensual intimate imagery, supported by industry-wide programs like NCMEC's Take It Down system & StopNCIl's hashing database. 2. These removal systems exist because of Sec 230, which explicitly protects platforms when they take down harmful content, making it reasonable for sites to make use of these efforts. Without 230's protections, platforms would face increased liability risks for any moderation attempts. 3. Most critically, Durbin confuses the actual criminals (who can and should be prosecuted) with the tools they misuse. It's like blaming the phone company for criminal conspiracies plotted over phone lines. This isn't just academic confusion - it's the kind of fundamental misunderstanding that could give the Trump administration unprecedented power to control online speech. The timing here is what makes this move particularly baffling-and dangerous. At the exact moment when Trump and his allies are systematically dismantling democratic institutions & attempting to silence critics, these D Senators want to hand them an incredibly powerful censorship tool. Here's what repealing Sec 230 would actually do: remove the law that explicitly protects websites when they resist government pressure to censor speech. Without those protections, the Trump administration would have far more leverage to force platforms to remove content they don't like - whether that's criticism of Trump, exposure of corruption, or information about voting rights. It can also allow them to pressure websites to host pro-MAGA or pro-Nazi content that sites might not wish to associate with. Think that's hyperbole? Consider what's already happening with all of the various attacks on the media & even law firms that have supported Democratic causes.

anyone remember how we used to think (D)s were for the people?

NOW not only do we have to plead our senate do ONE (just 1) thing to fight tyranny, we have to BEG THEM TO STOP COLLUDING 🤯DO NOT REPEAL 230 rn
@durbin.senate.gov @amyklobuchar.com @whitehouse.senate.gov @blumenthal.senate.gov #senwelch

techdirt.com headline Fri March 21, 2025 Democratic Senators Team Up With MAGA To Hand Trump A Censorship Machine

…strongest Senate allies to repeal Section 230-the law that both enables content moderation and protects websites from being sued into oblivion for hosting user speech. They appear to be doing this out of a deep misunderstanding of how the law works combined with an astounding naiveté about how this process will be used by the MAGA faithful. As early as next week, Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican, plan to introduce a bill that would set an expiration date of Jan. 1, 2027, for Section 230, according to a congressional aide familiar with the bill's development. The senators have wide-ranging support from their respective parties: Republicans Josh Hawley and Marsha Blackburn and Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Amy Klobuchar have agreed to co-sponsor the bill. And two more Democrats, Richard Blumenthal and Peter Welch, have discussed joining as co-sponsors. If all goes according to plan, Durbin and Graham's proposal would be the first bipartisan bill introduced in Congress that could repeal what's often lauded as the 26 words that created the internet. To understand just how dangerous this move is, consider a law that Senator Amy Klobuchar - one of the supporters of this new bill - pushed just a few years ago. In 2021, she introduced legislation to amend Section 230 in a way that would allow the Health & Human Services Secretary to designate certain online content as "health misinformation," requiring websites to remove it.

The fundamental problem here is that these Senators don't understand what Section 230 actually does - or how its repeal would make their stated goals harder to achieve. Take the lead Democrat on this bill, Senator Dick Durbin, who has long demonstrated his confusion about the law. Just this week, in an interview with Capitol Fax (an Illinois political newsletter whose design is even more outdated than Techdirt's!) Durbin doubled down on his misunderstanding, revealing exactly how his confusion could lead to disaster: Isabel Miller: A first amendment lawyer said your plan to sunset Section 230 would stifle free speech. A reporter said that it would destroy the open internet. And my boss said that if 230 was repealed, it would put his website out of business. Why do you want to do this? Sen. Durbin: Because of the sexual exploitation on the internet. Isabel: Aren't there rules in place to stop that already? Sen. Durbin: Section 230 says the following: If your teenage daughter is exploited with images which I can't even describe here, on the internet, and she discovers it to her horror and goes to that internet, social media source and said, 'take them down,' there is no legal obligation for them to do so. Why? Because Section 230 says they can't be held liable for continuing to broadcast this filth at the expense of this poor girl and her family. That's why 230 has to be revisited. 20 years ago, it might have made sense. It doesn't make sense now. There is no reason why the people on the internet should get away with this, and what we say is, if they want to do that, then they're subject to being sued. I think that will slow down the trafficking in this terrible sexploitation.

Durbin's response perfectly encapsulates how dangerous this misunderstanding is. He claims Sec 230 prevents websites from being held accountable for "exploitation," when in reality 1. Every major platform already has robust policies for removing non-consensual intimate imagery, supported by industry-wide programs like NCMEC's Take It Down system & StopNCIl's hashing database. 2. These removal systems exist because of Sec 230, which explicitly protects platforms when they take down harmful content, making it reasonable for sites to make use of these efforts. Without 230's protections, platforms would face increased liability risks for any moderation attempts. 3. Most critically, Durbin confuses the actual criminals (who can and should be prosecuted) with the tools they misuse. It's like blaming the phone company for criminal conspiracies plotted over phone lines. This isn't just academic confusion - it's the kind of fundamental misunderstanding that could give the Trump administration unprecedented power to control online speech. The timing here is what makes this move particularly baffling-and dangerous. At the exact moment when Trump and his allies are systematically dismantling democratic institutions & attempting to silence critics, these D Senators want to hand them an incredibly powerful censorship tool. Here's what repealing Sec 230 would actually do: remove the law that explicitly protects websites when they resist government pressure to censor speech. Without those protections, the Trump administration would have far more leverage to force platforms to remove content they don't like - whether that's criticism of Trump, exposure of corruption, or information about voting rights. It can also allow them to pressure websites to host pro-MAGA or pro-Nazi content that sites might not wish to associate with. Think that's hyperbole? Consider what's already happening with all of the various attacks on the media & even law firms that have supported Democratic causes.

anyone remember how we used to think (D)s were for the people?

NOW not only do we have to plead our senate do ONE (just 1) thing to fight tyranny, we have to BEG THEM TO STOP COLLUDING 🤯DO NOT REPEAL 230 rn
@durbin.senate.gov @amyklobuchar.com @whitehouse.senate.gov @blumenthal.senate.gov #senwelch