A letter to the President about saving our Constitution

Roscoe Davis tweets to President Trump,

Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230.

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 USC § 230).

These mega huge multi-billion dollar conglomerates have enjoyed the exemption of Section 230 since their inception, based on their claims as being open forums of communications of free speech protected by the first amendment.

Mr. President this wide sweeping one-sided censorship of citizens who these liberal globalist elites disagree with from an ideological standpoint makes them ineligible for a Section 230 exemption.

This then opens them up to liability of content, since their intent is to shape and control content that fits their ideology, thus opening them up to a range of laws that hold them legally responsible for what others say and do.

If they want to control and shape ideological and have the continued ability to pick and choose as they wish, let them be legally responsible for it.

This isn't creating any new regulation, which is not what us true conservatives like to do, but it allows laws already in place to do what they are intended to do, and not allow these hyper liberal conglomerates hide behind an exemption they aren't legally eligible to.

Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish by design.

However being allowed to censor content they disagree with just for mere ideological differences goes against the true spirit of the law as it was intended. I would challenge any legal protest to their loss of CDA 230 privilege all the way to the SCOTUS.

With CDA 230 they are protected and would otherwise face potential liability for their users' actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online.

Problem is they enjoy those protection and are still censoring conservative voices and others they don't agree with based solely on ideological differences and no other reason, that goes against the spirit of the law.

Please take this stance in consideration, because the First amendment is under attack and it endangers the very fabric of the US Constitution which you swore an oath to defend against all enemies both foreign & "domestic". Our Constitution is worth the effort.