Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

CPAC

Conservatives at CPAC Criticize—and Misunderstand—Section 230

A senator, a state attorney general, and a former congressman excoriated the law while getting much of it wrong.

Joe Lancaster | 3.2.2023 5:20 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Former Rep. Devin Nunes on stage at the 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference. | Brian Cahn/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom
(Brian Cahn/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom)

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis skipped this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), but his ideas were still on display.

Conservatives and Republican officeholders gathered in the Washington, D.C., area for the first time since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Featured among the schedule of events and appearances was one talk titled "Big Tech– Break 'em Up, Bust 'em Up, Put 'em in Jail." Panelists included Sen. Mike Braun (R–Ind.), Florida attorney general Ashley Moody, and former Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.), who served nearly two decades in the U.S. House before resigning in order to serve as CEO of Truth Social, former President Donald Trump's social media service.

While nominally about Big Tech companies and their role in everyday Americans' lives, the discussion touched on Section 230, the 1996 law that protects online platforms from legal liability for most content their users post. It allowed the internet to grow from nascency to ubiquity, but politicians on both the right and the left think it should be reformed or simply repealed.

Each panelist has an unimpressive pedigree on free speech and internet freedom. Braun cosponsored the 21st Century FREE Speech Act, which would have replaced Section 230 with "more limited protections." While in Congress, Nunes filed numerous lawsuits alleging hundreds of millions of dollars in defamation claims against people and personalities who said mean things about him on Twitter. And Moody, as Florida's top law enforcement official, is defending the state's blatantly unconstitutional social media law which DeSantis championed as "guarantee[ing] protection against the Silicon Valley elites."

On stage, the panelists complained about Section 230 and its effect on the internet. Braun complained that "Most of us do not get the benefit of having laws put in your favor—everybody else can get sued for whatever they do wrong," implying that tech companies cannot.

When asked to explain Section 230, Moody mischaracterized the law, saying it allows platforms to "publish information and not be held liable." The law does protect platforms from liability for what users post: If you publish information to a website, then you can be held liable for the content. The entire purpose of Section 230 is to place the liability on whoever created that content. If somebody posts something defamatory on Facebook or Twitter, then Facebook or Twitter cannot be held liable because they were not responsible for crafting the message.

The panel's moderator, Dan Schneider of the Media Research Center, lauded that all three panelists were "fighting…the good fight." Unfortunately, all of the panelists misunderstood what Section 230 does and what it's good for.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: SCOTUS Questions the Government's Absurdly Broad Definition of 'Aggravated Identity Theft'

Joe Lancaster is an assistant editor at Reason.

CPACConservatismRepublican PartySection 230Social MediaFree SpeechInternet
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (49)

Latest

Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case

Billy Binion | 5.28.2025 5:21 PM

RFK Jr. Denigrates Privately Funded Medical Research

Joe Lancaster | 5.28.2025 3:55 PM

Can Trump Yank Harvard's Remaining Federal Funding?

Emma Camp | 5.28.2025 3:30 PM

A Federal Judge Lists 8 Ways That Trump Violated the Constitution by Punishing a Disfavored Law Firm

Jacob Sullum | 5.28.2025 3:15 PM

Elon Musk Is Right. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Is a Bad Deal.

Eric Boehm | 5.28.2025 1:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!