Section 230 Was Hijacked by Big Tech to Silence You
In 1996, Congress passed a well-meaning law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to help internet platforms grow. It was supposed to protect online forums from liability for what their users said—not give billion-dollar corporations the right to shadow-ban dissidents, rig elections, and coordinate censorship with the federal government.
But thanks to a judicial sleight of hand, Section 230 became the sledgehammer Big Tech used to bludgeon the First Amendment into submission. And now—at long last—the Supreme Court may have a chance to fix it.
The case to watch is Fyk v. Facebook, and it might be the most important free speech lawsuit you've never heard of. So, here's The Lie That Broke the Internet:
Section 230(c)(1) reads:
'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.'
Sounds simple, right? Don't sue the platform for what someone else posts.
But that's not how the courts interpreted it.
They swapped out 'the publisher' for 'a publisher'—a tiny grammatical switch with massive consequences. That misquote gave platforms immunity not just for hosting content—but for what they choose to manipulate, suppress, or delete.
This misinterpretation has allowed Big Tech giants to: Throttle political speech they don't like; Deplatform rival voices and competitors; Shadow-ban stories that challenge official narratives, And partner with the government to suppress dissenting opinions—all while claiming immunity.
Don't take my word for it—look at the receipts. The 'Twitter Files' revealed that federal agencies actively worked with platforms to suppress content. A federal judge even issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden to stop this unconstitutional collusion.
That's not moderation. That's state-sanctioned censorship in a corporate mask.
Congress intended Section 230 to protect platforms acting in good faith—hence the name of Section 230(c):
'Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material.'
Platforms were supposed to remove truly harmful content—pornography, violence, abuse—not opinions that made their investors uncomfortable or their partners in D.C. nervous.
But under the courts' bastardized reading of the law, the 'good faith' clause in Section 230(c)(2) became meaningless. If 230(c)(1) shields all moderation, then what's the point of requiring platforms to act in good faith at all?
That's a textbook violation of the surplusage canon—a legal rule that says no part of a statute should be rendered pointless.
In short, the courts rewrote the law. And they handed Big Tech the keys to our digital public square.
Jason Fyk built a multi-million-dollar business on Facebook. With over 25 million followers, his pages drove massive traffic—until Facebook targeted and deleted his content, allegedly redirecting it to competitors and killing his revenue.
When he sued, Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the case under Section 230—claiming Facebook was immune.
But here's the kicker: Fyk wasn't suing over what other people said. He was suing over what Facebook did. They didn't just host his content—they manipulated it, redirected it, and destroyed his business. That's not speech. That's sabotage.
Fyk's verified complaint included sworn factual allegations. Under standard civil procedure (Rule 12(b)(6)), the court was required to treat those facts as true. Instead, the judge parroted Facebook's false claims—even branding Fyk the 'pee page guy' over a page he didn't even own.
This kind of judicial deference to Big Tech is exactly why Fyk's case is headed to the Supreme Court.
Let's clear something up: Section 230 is an affirmative defense, not 'sovereign immunity.' That means platforms must prove their actions were lawful—not automatically escape trial.
In Barnes v. Yahoo! (2009), the Ninth Circuit confirmed that Section 230 is not a blanket shield. But courts have ignored that precedent and instead created a fantasy world where Big Tech can't be touched—no matter what they do.
As Jason Fyk explains in his eye-opening analysis, Section 230 for Dummies, the judiciary has created 'super-immunity' out of thin air. That's not just unconstitutional—it's dangerous.
The Supreme Court has a golden opportunity here. If they take Fyk's case, they can:
Restore due process by ending early dismissals based on false immunity;
Reinstate the 'good faith' requirement for content moderation;
Clarify the difference between a neutral host and an active publisher;
And return free speech to the people, not the platforms.
No new laws are needed. Just correct interpretation of the law we already have.
Section 230 was designed to protect speech—not suppress it. It was written to encourage good faith moderation—not corporate censorship on behalf of the federal government.
The law isn't broken. The courts broke it. Now it's time they fix it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
Rounds says Trump notified congressional leaders of strikes ‘well within' 48-hour window
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said on Sunday that President Trump notified Congress of the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites 'well within' the 48-hour window defined by the War Powers Resolution. In an interview on NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday,' Rounds pushed back against critics who say the president acted outside his constitutional authority by ordering strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow. 'The Constitution clearly gives the President the authority to act on our nation's behalf,' Rounds said. 'Second of all, the War Powers Act, which is in place, was responded to appropriately. They were supposed to notify congressional leaders within 48 hours. They were well within that range of notifying them of the actions were taken, so the law has been complied with. The Constitution is being complied with,' Rounds continued. Rounds said the Constitution was acting just as 'the founders wanted it to work.' 'The president is the chief. The commander in chief has the responsibility. Our founding fathers were brilliant in the way they wrote the Constitution. They understood that Congress takes a long time to act. They also understood that in times in military conflict or in times of great danger or emergencies that the president needed the authority to be able to respond quickly and effectively and decisively,' he said. 'This president did just exactly that. It is working the way the founders wanted it to work in the first place,' Rounds added. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the strikes after 'the planes were safely out' of Iranian airspace, adding that the administration's actions ''complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act.' Some reports have indicated that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) were briefed about the strikes. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has criticized the administration for not seeking Congressional approval and has called for Congress to be 'fully and immediately briefed' on the strikes in a classified setting, in a statement shortly after the attacks.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Transcript: Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 22, 2025
The following is the transcript of an interview with GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California that aired on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" on June 22, 2025. MARGARET BRENNAN: Welcome back to "Face the Nation." Democrat Ro Khanna joins us from San Francisco, and here, in studio, is Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie. Good morning to both of you, gentlemen. I'll start with you, Congressman Massie, you know, I know this is an unlikely pairing. You are on completely different ends of the political spectrum, but you both worked on this war powers resolution to prohibit US forces from engaging in hostilities against Iran without authorization from Congress. President just blew right past that. CONGRESSMAN THOMAS MASSIE: Well, you know, I think I represent part of the coalition that elected President Trump. We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East, and tired of wars in East- Eastern Europe. And we were promised that we would put our veterans, our immigration policies, and our infrastructure first. And so what Ro and I did, we did this last week, when, you know, they were rattling the sabers. Because we saw this coming, we put forward this War Powers Resolution. I've teamed up with Ro Khanna before on this, to his credit, when Joe Biden was President; we tried to rein in the executive and reassert Congress's authority, sole authority, to declare war and to- and to engage or authorize the engagement of acts of war. MARGARET BRENNAN: Something we talked to other lawmakers about, as well, in the Senate, I know there's efforts to support you. But, the Speaker of the House, who is from your own party, has, really, rejected this. He says the Article I power of Congress, really, allows for the President to do this. It was a limited, necessary, targeted strike, he says. REP. MASSIE: Well, he's probably referring to the War Powers Act of 1973, but that's been misinterpreted. There were no imminent threat to the United States, which was what would authorize that. And I think that's peculiar to hear that from the Speaker of the House. Look, Congress was on vacation last week when all this was happening, MARGARET BRENNAN: You haven't been briefed. REP. MASSIE: We haven't been briefed. They should have called us all back. And, frankly, we should have debated this war powers resolution that Ro Khanna and I offered, instead of staying on vacation and doing fundraisers, and saying, oh, well, the President's got this under control, we're going to cede our constitutional authority. MARGARET BRENNAN: Ro Khanna- Congressman Khanna, and we didn't hear from the Secretary the explanation as to why now. We haven't heard that from anyone, other than a reference to the President had a, roughly, 60-day timeline on diplomatic talks, but we also know we had more talks scheduled when Israel launched this attack. So, it's just it's not exactly clear the emergency. You will be briefed along with other members of Congress Tuesday. What are the questions you have? CONGRESSMAN RO KHANNA: First of all, the tragedy in this country is that we keep entering these overseas wars. We triumphantly declare the mission is accomplished the day after, and then we're left with Americans bearing the consequences for decades. Now, Thomas is absolutely right, and showing courage. I mean, the headlines all across this country says the United States enters war with Iran. He is, actually, representing a lot of the people in the MAGA base. People like Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Theo Von, who has had them on, who's saying, we don't want this war. And I heard your interview with Secretary Rubio, he's saying, well, we want a peace deal. We want to make sure that Iran can enrich uranium through civil purposes. Well, we had that. We had that at the JCPOA, and there was not a single violation that the IEAE found during that time. So, my question, I guess, is, now you're going to force Iran to go covertly in developing this nuclear material. Now you put American troops at risk. Now you're wasting billions of our dollars because we're sending more troops to the Middle East. What did you accomplish? And why are you oblivious to the American people who are sick of these wars? MARGARET BRENNAN: But, Congressman, are you open to the idea that there could be intelligence that is disclosed to you in this classified setting on Tuesday that could justify this? Or, is any military action, in your view, you know, war? REP. RO KHANNA: Well, I'm always open to new intelligence. But, the procedure should have been that Congress was briefed before we decided to enter war, and that we actually had a vote on it. You had Tulsi Gabbard, who, just months ago, the Director of Intelligence, saying that was not the case. The reality is, and we should just speak openly, there are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail. We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we're not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East. MARGARET BRENNAN: And Congressman Massie, it's interesting because you were. Talking about a part of the party you represent. The Secretary of State comes from a different part of that same party, as you know. And I did hone in on the question about intelligence, and what it showed. He called it an ambition to weaponize. Weaponization ambition. That's different than they're making a nuclear weapon. REP. MASSIE: Yeah. MARGARET BRENNAN: But are you open to intelligence and persuasion here? REP. MASSIE: I'm open as well. But look, in the first Iraq war, the second Iraq war and the war in Afghanistan, Congress first got the briefings. Congress met and debated. It should have been declarations of war, but at least they did an authorization of use of military force. We haven't had that. This has been turned upside down- this process. MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, you heard from Mitch McConnell, the former Republican leader, the senator, say it was a bad week for the isolationists. He was talking about Tucker Carlson and he was talking about Steve Bannon. Do you think that the President is making a choice here, or is he trying to have it both ways, both saying I'm going to please the Hawks of the party by bombing, but then I'm going to say I want a peace deal and make the isolationists happy by saying, you know, I'm not committing to anything more than one and done? REP. MASSIE: Well, I'll concede this. It was a good week for the neocons and the military-industrial complex, who want war all the time. I wouldn't call my side of the MAGA base, isolationists. We are- we are exhausted. We are tired from all of these wars, and we're non-interventionists. I mean, this is what- this was one of the promises. I mean, are you going to call President Trump's campaign an isolationist campaign? What he promised us was we would put America first. And I think there are still voices in this administration. You've still got JD Vance, you've still got Tulsi Gabbard, you still- RFK Jr, you still got calmer heads that could prevail. MARGARET BRENNAN: They were not persuasive in this case, clearly. REP. MASSIE: Well, somebody was persuasive. AIPAC is very persuasive, for instance. The Israeli lobby in Congress. If you- if you look at my colleagues feeds now this- they all look the same. They're all tweeting the same message that we've got to support Israel and we've got to do this. My question is, does- you know, three bombings and we're done with- with Iran's nuclear ambitions, is that the two weeks to slow the spread of 2025? Is this- you know, we were told two weeks to slow the spread then, now we're told it's just going to take three bombings. But what happens when Israel gets bombed again? Is Trump going to sit by and say, no, we're not going to further engage in this war? MARGARET BRENNAN: I tried to get answers from the Secretary on that question. But when you say the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, do you see a difference between Israel's interests and American interests? REP. MASSIE: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, look- the- Iran, the reality is, they don't have a missile that can reach the United States. They're not near to getting a missile that can reach the United States. I think this- what has happened, what has transpired this week has been planned for months. That- that you know this administration, and maybe even the administration prior to that, said, you go in and soften them up, take out their air defense capabilities, and then we'll send in the big bombers. MARGARET BRENNAN: So, Congressman Khanna, I know you have raised objections on this program in the past about Israel's operations in Gaza, for how it has conducted that war against Hamas. That was a different context, but now you very well may be asked to provide more weaponry to Israel to defend itself. Do you oppose that as well? REP. RO KHANNA: Well, first, let me just say that it's a totally unfair smear to call people isolationists, the vast majority of Americans who don't want more war and want diplomacy. Diplomacy and engagement is not isolationism. But look on Israel, I have supported aid and support defensively. And even the War Powers resolution says that if Iran is striking Israel, they- you- we can provide defense so that Israel isn't hit. What I opposed was giving Israel offensive weapons to go kill more people in Gaza. I think that war needs to end. But I think the bottom line, Margaret, is, what have we achieved here? We have- we're going to push Iran to now be like Pakistan or North Korea going and try to develop a nuclear bomb covertly. We have put more American troops at risk. We're going to spend more resources put- going and getting more entrenched in the Middle East, and we've created a generation of hate. It's like, can this country learn? We keep voting for people for president who say we're not going to get into war, and then they keep getting pushed by the Washington beltway to get us into this mess. MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman Khanna, Congressman Massie, thank you. In a rare bipartisan meeting of the minds, at least on this issue, we'll be right back.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
‘There was no imminent threat,' Thomas Massie says in joining Ro Khanna in decrying Iran strike
Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — two lawmakers with very different views and priorities on most issues — came together Sunday to decry President Donald Trump's airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. Khanna and Massie told host Margaret Brennan on CBS' 'Face the Nation' that Congress was not briefed ahead of the military action, which they see as unconstitutional. The pair introduced a resolution last week to block U.S. involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel. 'I'm always open to new intelligence, but the procedure should have been Congress be briefed before we decided to enter war and actually have a vote on it,' Khanna said to Brennan. 'The reality is, people want regime change in Iran, and they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail.' House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X Saturday that the president 'fully respects' Article I of the Constitution, and the targeted strike follows 'the history and tradition' of prior military actions. Massie said Johnson's latter remark was likely referring to the War Powers Act of 1973, which allows for a president to take limited, targeted actions in a crisis without prior congressional approval, but that it was 'peculiar' to hear this from the Speaker of the House. 'That's been misinterpreted. There was no imminent threat to the United States which is what would authorize that,' Massie said. 'We haven't been briefed, they should have called us all back, and frankly we should have debated this war powers resolution that Ro Khanna and I offered instead of staying on vacation.' Khanna said Massie was showing 'courage' in speaking for parts of the MAGA base who have continually reiterated they do not want continuing wars in the Middle East. After Trump announced the airstrikes, MAGA largely fell in line with the action despite debates last week over the potential for U.S. military action in Iran amid continuing Israel-Iran missile exchanges. 'The tragedy in this country is that we keep entering these overseas wars, we triumphantly declare the mission is accomplished the day after, and then we're left with Americans bearing the consequences for decades,' Khanna said.
