Over the last couple of years, social media platforms have been accused of removing content providers as quickly as a flip of the switch, but now may be facing legal consequences for the action.
Next News Network speaks with Jason Fyk, a social media freedom advocate, who claims Section 230 is unconstitutional because it denies ‘due process’, and may have the lawsuit that brings down big tech. One main issue that many content providers have been complaining about is the strict censorship on narratives surrounding Covid-19 that go against mainstream news. Other issues are with some of the community guidelines that cause onlookers to sometimes wrongly strike channels they simply disagree with or not enjoy on huge social media accounts for Youtube, Instagram, and more.
In section 230, Congress sought to protect interactive computer service providers when acting as a “Good Samaritan”, voluntarily restricting offensive materials online. However, that is not what has transpired. Although section 230 was well-intentioned, section 230 now presents one of the greatest threats to our American way of life. Unbeknownst to many, section 230 grants private businesses the legislative authority, to create and enforce any self-imposed regulatory code it deems to be “in the public interest”.
In Mistretta v. United States, Justice Scalia once warned us; “This standard (‘public interest’) has effectively allowed Congress to grant administrative agencies (here, private businesses) the authority to create any rules they deem to be in the public interest, solely relying on the agency’s own views and policy agenda rather than requiring Congress to set forth objective guidelines.” Without objective guidelines or oversight, Congress has effectively granted private businesses the unfettered authority to regulate, not only the American people but the government itself. Simply stated, Congress’ delegation of section 230 authority is unconstitutional because it confers power, not to an official body, “but to private persons whose interests may be and often are adverse to the interests of others in the same business.”
The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property — without due process of law” and the internet is no exception! Section 230’s civil liability protection to restrict citizens materials (property) or their ability to do as they please (liberty), based on the private businesses’ own self-interests and agenda, ultimately denies Americans their Due Process Right and we must do something to stop this immediately or risk losing our Liberty forever.
Check out the interview with Jason Fyk below.
The censorship has become a bit much for some as the power behind the keyboard for elimination of content providers is sometimes by one individual. This becomes problematic obviously as that individual may be costing brands their following and content simply for not liking or agreeing with narratives or the content produced despite it not being of any harm to any group or individual.