top of page

Time to Strike Down Section 230 and Reclaim Free Speech!

     Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional because it allows the government to indirectly suppress free speech through private entities. ​Section 230 grants broad legal immunity to online platforms for content moderation decisions, which incentivizes these platforms to remove certain types of speech that the government or lawmakers may find objectionable. ​ This creates a framework where the government can achieve censorship by proxy, which would be unconstitutional if done directly by the government. ​ This arrangement is seen as a violation of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. ​ The doctrine of "unconstitutional conditions" also supports this view, holding that the government cannot grant benefits or privileges on the condition that a constitutional right is relinquished.

​​     Section 230 impacts free speech by providing online platforms with broad legal immunity from liability for user-generated content and their moderation decisions. ​ Here are the key ways it affects free speech:

  1. Protection for Platforms: Section 230(c)(1) states that platforms are not considered the publishers of user-generated content, which shields them from being held liable for what users post. ​

  2. Content Moderation Immunity: Section 230(c)(2) allows platforms to remove or restrict access to content they consider "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable," even if such content is constitutionally protected speech. ​ This gives platforms the freedom to moderate content without the risk of being sued for their moderation decisions. ​

  3. Incentivizing Censorship: Section 230 incentivizes platforms to over-moderate content to avoid any potential issues, leading to the suppression of lawful speech. ​ This is because the legal immunity provided by Section 230 makes it easier for platforms to remove content they find objectionable without facing legal challenges. ​

  4. Government Influence: There is a concern that the government can indirectly influence platforms to censor certain types of speech by leveraging the protections of Section 230. ​ For example, in Hall's case, lawmakers pressured platforms to remove White Nationalists and White Supremist and content they themselves found undesirable, knowing that Section 230 protects these platforms from legal consequences. ​

  5. Quid Pro Quo Allegations: Section 230 creates a quid pro quo arrangement where the government provides legal protections to platforms in exchange for these platforms engaging in content moderation that aligns with government preferences. ​ This is seen as an indirect way for the government to achieve censorship, which would be unconstitutional if done directly.  In Hall's case, Congress violated the separations clause as first established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), and reiterated in  Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that Congress cannot unilaterally exercise executive powers, which is exactly what Congress Members did when they acted as judge, jury and coerced Twitter to remove White Nationalists and White Supremist from their platform, under the threat of repealing Section 230 and the millions and millions of dollars of legal benefits Twitter enjoys.

​​

      In summary, while Section 230 is designed to promote free speech by protecting platforms from liability, it also gives these platforms significant power to moderate and potentially suppress speech, raising concerns about indirect government censorship and the overall impact on free expression. ​​​​

Protect Our Children's Voices! Urge the U.S. Supreme Court to Strike Down Section 230—It Infringes on Free Speech and the Speech of Future Generations!

In my Complaint, I alleged that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional for several reasons:

1. Exceeds Constitutional Bounds: Congress exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause by regulating speech through Section 230, as public speech and criminal speech are non-economic activities that should be governed by state or local laws. ​

2. Violates Free Speech: Section 230 restricts individuals' right to free speech in public forums, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Part I, Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution. ​

3. Unconstitutionally Vague and Overbroad: The statute is vague and overbroad, allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. ​ It fails to provide clear standards for what constitutes "good faith" removal of content, leading to potential viewpoint discrimination. ​

4. Usurps Judicial Remedies: By delegating policing duties to private entities like Twitter, Section 230 usurps judicial remedies available to citizens for violations of constitutional rights. ​

5. Prior Restraint on Speech: The statute is seen as a prior restraint that regulates speech based on content, which is presumptively unconstitutional. ​

6. Encourages Arbitrary Enforcement: Section 230 permits and encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, lacking any plainly legitimate sweep. ​

​

These points collectively argue that Section 230 infringes on constitutional protections and should be deemed unconstitutional. ​

In a Rule 5.1 Motion, I further allege that Section 230 is unconstitutional because it abridges free speech, contains content-based restrictions, regulates speech without due process, and violates the nondelegation doctrine and separation of powers

   The argument for why the Supreme Court should strike down Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act centers on several key points:

  1. Unconstitutional Delegation of Power: Section 230 effectively delegates the government's power to restrict speech to private entities. ​ This delegation allows platforms to moderate content in ways that align with government preferences, which is an indirect form of government censorship. ​

  2. First Amendment Violations: The First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. ​ By providing legal immunity to platforms for their content moderation decisions, Section 230 incentivizes these platforms to remove content that might be protected speech under the First Amendment. ​ This creates a situation where the government can achieve censorship by proxy, which would be unconstitutional if done directly. ​

  3. Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine: This legal doctrine holds that the government cannot grant a benefit or privilege to a private entity on the condition that the entity relinquishes a constitutional right. ​ Section 230 is seen as creating a quid pro quo arrangement where the government provides legal protections to platforms in exchange for these platforms engaging in content moderation that suppresses certain types of speech. ​ This is viewed as an unconstitutional condition. ​

  4. Lack of Accountability: Section 230 provides broad immunity to platforms, which critics argue leads to a lack of accountability for their content moderation decisions. ​ This can result in arbitrary or biased censorship, undermining the principles of free speech and open discourse. ​

  5. Judicial Review and Duty to Protect Constitutional Rights: The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review to invalidate laws that are found to be unconstitutional. ​ Given the arguments that Section 230 infringes on free speech and enables indirect government censorship, proponents of striking down the law believe it is the Court's duty to protect constitutional rights by invalidating Section 230. ​

​

In summary, the call to strike down Section 230 is based on the belief that it enables unconstitutional delegation of censorship powers, violates the First Amendment, creates unconstitutional conditions, and leads to a lack of accountability for platforms' content moderation decisions. ​

© 2025 by Daniel E. Hall, All rights reserved.
bottom of page