Congress Shall Make No Law

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ─ Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment I.

Gab, the free-speech alternative to politically-censored Twitter, was removed from the internetGoDaddy suspended its domain for which it had paid.  This came upon the heels of its original hosting provider refusing to continue hosting it, and its new hosting provider pulling away from service under threat from the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Democrat Josh ShapiroPayPal has also refused to continue to do business with Gab.

Funny, but none of these companies take offense to Antifa, an organization that actively promotes and actually engages in violence.

The internet giants are relying upon the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I, §230, ‘Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material.’

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Look closely at paragraph (C)(2)(A).

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material … whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

“Whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Upon this basis, these companies have proceeded not only to censor political speech they do not like, but politicians they deplore, blocking their ads and censoring their speech, placing left-leaning candidates ahead of conservative ones.  The internet is no longer a free speech platform as far as the walled gardens of Facebook and Twitter are concerned.  Google discriminates against conservative candidates and actively promotes leftists.  Whether this support represents gifts-in-kind, as if IBM or General Motors or Merck were providing favored candidates free airplanes, helicopters, automobiles, and company employees to canvas neighborhoods and for campaign mailers at company (and shareholder) expense, I leave to attorneys to litigate, if any have the gumption, though it certainly seems one and the same sort of favoritism to me.  And these internet giants are public companies.

My focus is this passage in the law that supposedly permits tech giants to censor American citizens “whether or not [their speech] is constitutionally protected.”

What part of “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” does the American legal system not comprehend?  Has Congress not made a law doing precisely this?  The Communications Decency Act of 1996 explicitly holds harmless any Big Tech company that censors American citizens (and political candidates) “whether or not [their speech] is constitutionally protected.”

I am not an attorney.  I am not a member of the bar.  But it sure looks to me like Congress made a law that is in blatant disregard of the First Amendment.

If we have such good attorneys in this country, and such wise judges on the bench, why has this clause not been struck down as unconstitutional?  How much more explicit does a law have to be than to say, “whether or not such material is constitutionally protected”?  What more evidence do they need?  The Parousia?  The Resurrection of the Dead?  Is this part of the Last Judgment?

And if this clause in the law is, as it certainly appears to be, in plain and explicit violation of the Constitution prima facie, where are the clever lawyers to overturn it to win their clients (and themselves) large monetary judgments against American companies practicing censorship and the individuals in those companies responsible for those decisions?

And by the way, wasn’t this the original purpose of the American Civil Liberties Union?  It matters whose ox is gored.  “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The Pigs are in charge now.