#pro section 230

Charlie brings up that section 230 has been attacked for a while now

(these are his words, not mine)

with the democrats, it was being blamed for racism and harming kids with the republicans, it was being blamed for misinformation and antisemitism

He pointed out that section 230 has been under attack by people who want to control free speech

He brings up a very clean and clear idea of what section 230 is and why it protects free speech

He brings up that section 230 being killed off would allow more misinformation because more people wouldn't be able to point out the bad information, because there would be only one approved voice and that voice might be agreeing with that misinformation

He basically talks about section 230 helps protect free speech and help fight against misinformation

There will be a hearing about section 230 on March 18th at 10:00AM EST

Ted Cruz, who is leading the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, says that section 230 helps companies suppress view points, but also fully admits that a full on repeal would increase censorship

CONTACT!!!

This should have info on how to contact people in the committee that’s having this hearing (the first website)

TL;DR

Adam Candeub has been nominated by trump as lead antitrust enforcement at the Justice Department

Adam has repeatedly wanted to dismantle and get rid of section 230, even being part of the trump administration attempts to do the same thing back in 2020, with claims that big tech was censoring conservatives voices

He views section 230 as big tech companies way of “advocate for an open internet while at the same time justifying their censorship regime.”

He also has a campaign against online porn, wanting to prosecute it under a modern version of comstock act and other state obscenity laws

(Please look at the photo if you want more info on comstock)

He wants age estimations based on things like hand movements and email addresses to block minors from reaching porn

full text

“President Donald Trump has nominated Adam Candeub to lead antitrust enforcement at the Justice Department.

The pick hands the government’s cases against Big Tech to a lawyer who wants to weaken the law protecting online speech and to put internet users under surveillance to enforce age checks.”

He was actually the general counsel at the Federal by Communications Commission before being announced as assistant attorney general

“Candeub has spent years pressing to weaken Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the provision that shields platforms from lawsuits over what their users post.

Weaken that shield, and companies gain every reason to delete more user content rather than carry the risk.

his own personal history against section 230

A 2019 essay of his described Facebook, Google and Twitter, now X, as using the statute to “advocate for an open internet while at the same time justifying their censorship regime.””

“He helped build the first Trump administration’s attempt to scrap the provision.

As a Commerce Department official, he worked to carry out the president’s executive order targeting Big Tech over claims it silenced conservative voices.”

online porn

“The surveillance runs through his campaign against online pornography.

Candeub set out the case in a Heritage Foundation report on July 6 and an op-ed the day after.

He argued for prosecuting porn under the modern version of the Comstock Act and state obscenity laws.

“Never has so much pornography been so available to so many at so little cost,” he wrote.”

watching people do what they do online

“To keep the material from minors, he proposed estimating ages by watching what people do online.

Age can be judged, he wrote, “simply by analyzing publicly available online information such as your email address or even pictures of your hand movements.”

That would put every adult reaching for a legal website under a system that reads their email address and studies images of their hands to guess how old they are.”

“His plans for antitrust follow the same instinct.

his ideas on regulation and online internet

Candeub has granted that tech platforms show little of the consumer harm competition law was built to catch.

He argues regulators should reach for behavioral claims instead, among them that “social media makes Americans less happy.””

He makes the claim within the chapter he wrote for the world heritage foundation that

“Despite their [ tech companies and internet platforms] enormous size, they have avoided significant antitrust liability or prosecution. The reasons for this are not entirely clear.”

“Candeub has questioned whether the Federal Trade Commission, which shares antitrust enforcement with the Justice Department, should be allowed to police competition “or even continue to exist.”

In his Project 2025 chapter he urged revisiting the Supreme Court precedent that protected the agency’s independence “perhaps sooner than later.”

The court did that in June, ruling against former FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Trump had fired her without cause.”

make sure to contact your representatives to block him

source

TL;DR

This is gonna be a very simplified version of this article

The 5th circuit court blocked parts of the SCOPE ACT

This is because of section 230 and his it “protects social media companies from civil liability for user content”

Which basically means that social media sites and companies are protected from the stuff their users posted

This means that the filtering and monitoring of content is blocked and preempted by section 230

However, the age verification for porn sites still stands because of the Supreme Court ruling of FSC v. Paxt

the full thing

“In a 2-1 decision, the ​5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans said a federal law that broadly shields ​the industry from liability for information posted by third parties preempted the monitoring and ⁠filtering requirement in Texas' Securing Children Online through Parental Empowerment Act, or SCOPE Act.”

“A lower court had issued ​injunctions blocking parts of the law, which took effect in September 2024 and is also known as Texas ​House Bill 18.”

“Friday's decision was a victory for the Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice,

States and social media companies have long been at odds over ​whether Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act shields the industry from responsibility to police user content.”

“In March, a different ‌federal ⁠appeals court voided much of an injunction that blocked California from enforcing its own law, the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, shielding children from harmful social media content

section 230

“Circuit Judge Dana Douglas wrote that Section 230 protects social media companies from civil liability for user content”

“The New Orleans-based appeals court upheld an age-verification requirement in the Texas law. (Not the social media one, but the porn one based on the Supreme Court case)

It also said the nonprofit Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, ​which also sued to block the law, lacked standing.

Circuit Judge James Ho partially ​dissented (disagree with the rest of the opinion) and ⁠would have upheld the Texas law, saying it "regulates curation, not publication—first-party speech, not third-party speech."

CCIA Chief Executive Matthew Schruers said the decision "confirmed that federal law bars Texas from impressing websites and services into the role of state censors."”

Paul ⁠Taske, director ​of the NetChoice Litigation Center, called the decision "a win for every ​Texan who believes the government has no business deciding what they can read, watch and say online."