Today In Senators Who Don’t Know What The Fuck They’re Talking About Regarding Internet & Speech: Senator James Lankford
I've heard some truly bizarre attacks on Section 230, but Senator James Lankford from Oklahoma has taken it all to a new level of nonsense. The already Trumpian Senator is apparently facing a primary from someone even Trumpier, which perhaps contributes to whatever brain damage caused him to tweet a bunch of total nonsense over the weekend ostensibly about Section 230, but really just demonstrating what a very uninformed man, Senator James Lankford is.
Big Tech companies are not the ones who get to decide what free speech is. We need to rip & repeal legislation that allows Big Tech to subjectively censor groups they just don't agree with that day. pic.twitter.com/IPiM0zVVXr
- Sen. James Lankford (@SenatorLankford) February 27, 2022
The three tweet thread reads as if Lankford asked an AI (or a very, very stupid intern) to come up with something to say criticizing Section 230, and this is what it spit out:
Big Tech companies are not the ones who get to decide what free speech is. We need to rip & repeal legislation that allows Big Tech to subjectively censor groups they just don't agree with that day.
Legislation like Section 230 was originally made to protect from child trafficking over the internet through websites like backpage.com, but Big Tech companies are using it as a shield to censor Americans.
We need to continue to protect our children while also enforcing that Big Tech is doing their part to protect the next generation as well.
The first tweet also includes a video of Lankford doing the standard idiot's guide to cherry-picking content moderation examples he disagrees with, pointing to a bunch of examples (almost all out of context) about what he believes are unfair or incorrect moderation choices. For example, he contrasts the removal of former President Trump with other awful global leaders, leaving out the reasons why Trump was banned. It wasn't just that he was a terrible person or leader, but rather that he broke specific rules on the platform (specifically inciting violence). Lankford points to other terrible world leaders, but doesn't point to any examples of them actually breaking Twitter's rules.
Now, there may be a reasonable argument that Twitter shouldn't allow terrible, dictatorial, authoritarian world leaders on its platforms. That could be a discussion worth having. But the argument here ignores the reality which is that - contrary to what Lankford and various very clueless people believe - the major sites don't just ban people they dislike. They have policies in place, and they wait until someone actually violates those policies, as Trump did.
Either way, Lankford's CPAC nonsense was wrong, but at least it was coherent. That Twitter thread, was both wrong and incoherent. First of all, if you want to rip & repeal" what allows tech companies to moderate as they see fit, then you're trying to throw out the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (the same Constitution you swore to uphold and protect, Senator) not Section 230. It's the 1st Amendment that grants a website the right to remove whatever content they want - and it's what protects not just Facebook and Twitter's choices, but also Truth Social and GETTR to similarly moderate how they see fit.
As for the second tweet... it's just such pure incomprehensible nonsense that I need to repeat it here:
Legislation like Section 230 was originally made to protect from child trafficking over the internet through websites like backpage.com, but Big Tech companies are using it as a shield to censor Americans.
Leaving aside the (very weird) decision to literally link to Backpage, none of the rest of this tweet makes even the slightest bit of sense. Section 230 was passed in 1996. Backpage.com was founded in 2004. And Section 230 was not originally (or ever?) made to protect from child trafficking over the internet" because child trafficking (over the internet or otherwise) is a federal crime, and Section 230(e)(1) has always exempted Section 230 from federal criminal law.
Also, Section 230 was not made" for anything related to any of this. It was actually written to support a very traditionally conservative belief: that websites should be free to moderate as they see fit, without fear of either legal threats or government interference. And it covers not just every website that allows third party speech, but also their users as well (so it's not just about Big Tech"). But, either way, the choices of a website to moderate content is, generally, protected by the 1st Amendment. The benefit of Section 230 is that it helps get those nuisance lawsuits tossed out sooner, which actually protects the smaller internet competitors much more than the big guys.
So, if he's talking about ripping and replacing Section 230 to stop censorship" he's going to be mighty disappointed. First of all, it won't stop content moderation - which, again, is protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution that Senator Lankford swore to protect and uphold. But it will lead to sites like Truth Social and GETTR (and lots of others) facing a lot more costly litigation. And would have no impact whatsoever on child trafficking over the internet."
So, Senator, either educate yourself, or find a better AI to write your tweets.