Bipartisan Senators Want To Honor Charlie Kirk By Making It Easier To Censor The Internet

Democratic Senator Mark Kelly and Republican Senator John Curtis want to gut Section 230 to combat political radicalization"-in honor of Charlie Kirk, whose entire career was built on political radicalization.

Kirk styled himself as a free speech warrior" because he would show up on college campuses to debate" people, but as we've covered, the debate me bro" shtick was just trolling designed to generate polarizing content for social media. He made his living pushing exactly the kind of inflammatory political content that these senators now claim is so dangerous it requires dismantling core legal protections for speech. Their solution to political violence inspired by online rhetoric is to create a legal framework that will massively increase censorship of political speech.

Which they claim they're doing... in support of free speech.

Almost everything about what they're saying is backwards.

The two Senators spoke at an event at Utah Valley University, where Charlie Kirk was shot, to talk about how they were hoping to stop political violence. That's a worthwhile goal, but their proposed solution reveals they don't understand how Section 230 actually works.

The senators also used their bipartisan panel on Wednesday to announce plans to hold social media companies accountable for the type of harmful content promoted around the assassination of Kirk, which they say leads to political violence.

During their televised discussion, Curtis and Kelly previewed a bill they intend to introduce shortly that would remove liability protection for social media companies that boost content that contributes to political radicalization and violence.

The Algorithm Accountability Act" would transform one of the pillars of internet governance by reforming a 30-year-old regulation known as Section 230 that gives online platforms legal immunity for content posted by their users.

What we're saying is this is creating an environment that is causing all sorts of harm in our society and particularly with our youth, and it needs to be addressed," Curtis told the Deseret News.

The bill would strip Section 230 protections from companies if it can be proven in court that they used an algorithm to amplify content that caused harm. This change means tech giants would own" the harmful content they promote, creating a private cause of action for individuals to sue.

Like so many politicians who want to gut Section 230, Kelly and Curtis clearly don't understand how it actually works. Their Algorithm Accountability Act" would create exactly the kind of censorship regime they claim to oppose.

It's kind of incredible how many times I've had to say this to US Senators, but repealing 230 doesn't make companies automatically responsible for speech. That's literally not how it works. They're still protected by the First Amendment.

It just makes it much more expensive to defend hosting speech, which means they will take one of two approaches: (1) host way less speech and become much, much more restricted in what people can say or (2) do little to no moderation, because under the First Amendment, they can only be held liable if they have knowledge of legally violative content.

And most of the content that would be covered by this bill speech that contributes to political radicalization" is, um, kinda quintessentially protected by the First Amendment.

Kelly's comments reveal the stunning cognitive dissonance at the heart of this proposal:

I did not agree with him on much. But I'll tell you what, I will go to war to fight for his right to say what he believes," said Kelly, who is a former Navy pilot. Even if you disagree with somebody, doesn't mean you put a wall up between you and them."

This is breathtaking doublethink. Kelly claims he'll go to war" to protect Kirk's right to speak while literally authoring legislation that will silence the platforms where that speech happens. It's like saying I'll defend your right to assembly" while bulldozing every meeting hall in town.

Curtis manages to be even more confused:

What this bill would do, Curtis explained, is open up these trillion-dollar companies to the same kind of liability that tobacco companies and other industries face.

If they're responsible for something going out that caused harm, they are responsible. So think twice before you magnify. Why do these things need to be magnified at all?" Curtis said.

This comparison is absurdly stupid. Tobacco is a physical product that literally destroys your lungs and causes cancer. Speech is expression protected by the First Amendment. Curtis is essentially arguing that if political speech influences someone's behavior in a way he doesn't like, the platform should be liable-as if words and ideas are chemically addictive carcinogens.

The entire point of the First Amendment is that we don't consider speech to be harmful.

What Curtis is proposing is holding companies liable whenever speech causes harm," which is fucking terrifying when Trump and his FCC are already threatening platforms for hosting criticism of the administration.

The political implications here are staggering. Kelly, a Democrat, is signing onto a bill that will let Trump and MAGA supporters (the bill has a private right of action that will let anyone sue!) basically sue every internet platform for promoting" content they deem politically polarizing, which they will say is anything that criticizes Trump or promotes woke" views.

And why is he pushing such a bill in supposed support of Charlie Kirk, a person whose only job was pushing political polarization, and whose entire debate me bro" shtick was entirely designed to push political polarization online?

What are we even doing here?

This entire proposal is a monument to confused thinking. Kelly and Curtis claim they want to honor Charlie Kirk by passing legislation that would have silenced the very platforms where he built his career. They claim to support free speech while authoring a bill designed to chill political expression. They worry about political polarization while creating a legal weapon that will be used almost exclusively by the most polarizing political actors to silence their critics.

Rolling back Section 230 will lead to much greater censorship, not less. Claiming it's necessary to diminish political polarization is disconnected from reality. But at least it will come in handy for whoever challenges this law as unconstitutional-the backers are out there openly admitting they're introducing legislation designed to violate the First Amendment.