Parler Welcomes Section 230 Repeal; Says Free Speech Platform Would Thrive Under A Section 230 Repeal

Parler
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, states that an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. It protects websites from lawsuits if a user posts something defamatory or illegal, with some exceptions.

HENDERSON, NV – Today, executives declared that Parler and other free speech platforms would be better off if Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act were repealed than they would be under a politically feasible re-write of Section 230. Such a re-write would, they believe, further encourage the speech-restrictive, content moderation policies of established tech giants Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. As it stands, the current interpretation of Section 230 already encourages these practices, by providing immunity from liability for removal of any content a platform’s leadership finds “objectionable.”

If Mark Zuckerberg and his cronies in Congress have their way, these practices would be not only protected from liability, they would be mandated. Online platforms would, under a revised Section 230, become de facto censors, restricting speech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. Not only is this morally wrong, it would simultaneously increase barriers to entry while limiting the ability of social media companies to compete by offering different policies. 

Press Release by Released by Parler on January 4, 2021

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in 1996, states that an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. It protects websites from lawsuits if a user posts something defamatory or illegal, with some exceptions.

 “Today, a politically viable re-write of Section 230 would transform Orwell’s 1984 from a dystopian novel into an instruction manual, requiring all platforms to adopt Twitter / Facebook / Google’s terms of service—and ‘protect’ people from ‘wrong-think’—even when this restricts or prohibits speech that is protected by the First Amendment.”

Amy Peikoff, Parler’s Chief Policy Officer

Ad Disclosure: This site earns revenue from ads, some within content. You can support independent journalism and help us stay afloat by donating or purchasing our merch following us on social media (Facebook | Twitter | Youtube | Instagram | LinkedIn | Pinterest | Flipboard | Feedspot) or just sharing content you like.

“Until there is a repeal of Section 230, both Congress and the Media will continue to attack platforms, like Parler, which do not moderate content the way they want it moderated. They want platforms to be required to censor speech that challenges their worldview—even though they know such a mandate would violate the First Amendment.”

Parler Chief Operating Officer, Jeffrey Wernick
Comment via Facebook

PALM BEACH WEATHER