Supposedly Disadvantaged Conservatives Not Exactly Rushing To Support Josh Hawley's Anti-Section 230 Bill

Senator Josh Hawley's ridiculous and unconstitutional bill to remove CDA Section 230 protections from internet giants was clearly designed to appeal to conservative voters who have been fed a nonstop myth that the big internet platforms are "targeting" them for their conservative views, when the reality is that the platforms are mostly targeting trolls, harassers, Nazis, and assholes. If those factors are disproportionately impacting Republicans, then perhaps that's more an issue for the Republican party than the internet platforms.

Either way, given that the myth that platforms are "targeting" conservatives has some traction, it seems likely that Hawley thought the conservative movement and conservative organizations would likely rush in to support his nonsense bill. It appears he miscalculated. FreedomWorks, the organization closely associated with the Tea Party movement put out a tweet mocking Hawley for thinking "conservatives are too stupid to realize he's trying to kill free speech online."

The group Americans for Prosperity put out a very strong statement against Hawley's proposal:

“Senator Hawley’s misguided legislation sets the table for stricter government control over free expression online. Eroding the crucial protections that exist under Section 230 creates a scenario where government has the ability to police your speech and determine what you can or cannot say online. Senator Hawley has argued that some tech platforms have become too powerful, but legislation like this would only cement the market dominance of today’s largest firms. This bill would punish success in the next generation of innovative startups and prevent them from achieving their full potential. Lawmakers should reject this legislation.”

Over at CATO, John Samples highlights how Hawley's own bill seems to go against conservative ideals:

Sen. Hawley’s bill seeks to undermine an older American conservatism. Not long ago, the Reagan legacy spoke powerfully to conservatives. Of course, the Reagan administration ended the Fairness Doctrine and in general, supported markets free of government regulation. Some now believe that times have changed and the ideals of 1980 no longer should guide conservative thinking. If that was “then,” Sen. Hawley is definitely “now.” But if conservatives are turning their backs on timeless ideals like free markets and free speech, what could conservatism mean beyond political necessity and the rage of transient majorities?

But perhaps the best response from a traditional conservative to Hawley's nonsense comes from David French at the National Review. As he notes, Hawley's bill is an "unwise, unconstitutional mess." The article should be required reading for any "conservative" who thinks Hawley's bill makes sense.

In reality, it’s a bill that would inject the federal government directly into the private social-media business and grant it enormous power over social-media content. It would enable public censorship in the name of limiting private control.

French also does a great job laying out why Section 230 makes sense -- even highlighting an argument I made decades ago, that Section 230 is simply locking in common sense in how to properly apply liability:

Section 230 codifies online a concept we easily understand in the offline world. For example, if you attend a congressman’s town-hall meeting, and he instructs his audience that their comments are limited in time, that they cannot use profanity, and they should remain on topic (moderating the platform), does that transform their speech into his speech?

If I’m in a public university classroom, where the professor can rule discourse with an iron fist, are my comments his comments — even if he shuts down students he doesn’t like or imposes strict rules of civility and decency?

But there’s a difference between student-classroom comments and a college newspaper publishing a student symposium, where it selects, edits, and fact-checks the submissions. These distinctions have become so obvious over time that we scarcely discuss them, and these distinctions exist online as well. In many ways, Section 230 — far from creating a “special break” for computer services — codifies common sense. My Facebook comment is fundamentally my speech.

Indeed, there was a time when I used to argue we shouldn't need a Section 230 at all since it was such common sense... but after seeing so many people perplexed by the internet and suing the middleman, rather than those actually responsible, I've come to appreciate the procedural benefits of Section 230.

However, the point that French raises above, about how Section 230 is codifying common sense is important in another way as well: in debunking the other big myth that Section 230 is somehow a "gift to the tech industry." It is not, and has never been. Over and over again people wrongly insist that this is some "special privilege" to the big internet companies. Hell, Hawley himself just tweeted that it's some sort of "special immunity." It's not "special." It's just properly applying liability in a common sense way. We wouldn't need it if people didn't keep falsely blaming internet services for the actions of their users, but as long as people like Josh Hawley want to blame the wrong party, then it's what we'll end up with.

And, of course, French highlights just how obviously unconstitutional Hawley's bill is:

Hawley’s standard is most assuredly not the viewpoint-neutrality standard seen in First Amendment case law. It’s a carnival funhouse version that would invite an enormous amount of bureaucratic meddling. For example, conservative sites and posts often do very well on Facebook, in part because of its older user base and partly because conservative Facebook users have gotten quite good at creating viral content. Will a Kamala Harris administration decide that disproportionate conservative success violates political neutrality?

Laws that purport to regulate First Amendment–protected speech bear a special burden of precision and clarity. They have to clearly explain what is prohibited and permitted. Vague or overbroad laws violate the Constitution in part by failing to provide fair notice of government standards. Hawley’s bill, as written, is extraordinarily vague. Terms such as “disproportionate” are very hard to define. Disproportionate to what? User percentages? Population percentages? User engagement? The standard is extraordinarily malleable.

I am sure that there will be some "conservatives" who will come out in favor of Hawley's bill, but so far, it appears that many conservatives are pointing out how anti-conservative it is. Hilariously, it seems that the main thing linking those who support Hawley's effort is not any particular ideology other than blind hatred for internet companies, and an attitude that anything that hurts the big internet companies must surely be good, just because. That's one way to make laws, but it's certainly not a principled one, nor a good one.