‘Tesla Takedown' organizers call on Democrats to shield Section 230

Dozens of activists who helped organize protests this year against Elon Musk's company Tesla are calling on Democratic leaders in Congress to drop efforts to repeal Section 230, arguing the statute protects their activism efforts.
In a letter sent Thursday to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and other Democratic leaders, 60 activists with the 'Tesla Takedown' movement urged lawmakers to 'leave Section 230 alone.'
'Without this law to protect our online speech and communities from censorship, we would never have been able to coordinate our movement on such a scale,' the letter stated. 'Instead, the social media platforms we used to share information would have deplatformed us, for fear of being sued by Elon Musk or his supporters.'
'Being able to organize online together is a source of our strength and resilience. Don't destroy it,' the letter added.
The organizers behind the letter said they coordinated nearly 300 protests against the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla last month as part of the broader demonstration against Musk and his leadership of President Trump's 'Department of Government Efficiency' (DOGE) cost-cutting initiatives.
Musk also owns the social media platform X, previously known as Twitter.
Durbin, alongside Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are expected to soon introduce a bill to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects technology companies from being held legally responsible for third party or user consent.
The law was passed in 1996, years before the social media boom hit the internet. Advocates of reforming Section 230 have long argued the internet is significantly different than it was in 1996 and the law should be updated to reflect these changes.
The protest organizers argued 'Big Tech' companies like Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, would be able to withstand the stripped protections but smaller platforms might not.
'Without the first amendment of the Internet, their competitors like Bluesky and Reddit will either have to bend the knee to the Trump administration and delete people and posts as he sees fit — or else, allow violent threats and intimidation against activists like us to rain down with no repercussions,' the letter stated.
The Hill reached out to Durbin and Graham's office for comment.
Efforts to reform or repeal Section 230 have support from factions on both sides of the aisle, though usually for different reasons.
Democrats who support sunsetting Section 230 argue it will hold tech platforms responsible for the harms they allegedly cause users, while some Republicans argue the statute gives social media protection if a person, group or organization claims censorship of certain political views.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

New York Times

31 minutes ago

• New York Times

Live Updates: Fears Run High as Iran Weighs Response to U.S. Strikes

Demonstrators hold signs against the U.S. strikes against Iran in Washington outside the White House on Sunday. Before he ordered strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, President Trump did not seek permission from Congress, to which the U.S. Constitution grants the sole power to declare war. Many Democrats and even some Republicans say that the attack was tantamount to a declaration of war and that Mr. Trump acted illegally. Several Trump aides say they disagree, calling the strike a limited action aimed solely at Iran's nuclear capabilities that does not meet the definition of war. 'This is not a war against Iran,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News on Sunday. Vice President JD Vance argued that Mr. Trump had 'clear authority to act to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' However, later on Sunday, Mr. Trump wrote online that his military aims could be much more expansive: 'If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' Criticisms of the attack, which came less than two weeks after Israel began its bombing campaign against Iran, include Mr. Trump not giving American policymakers, lawmakers and the public enough time to debate a role in a conflict that experts warn could grow quickly if Iran retaliates. The furor over the sudden strikes follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. So is the United States at war with Iran? And did Mr. Trump have the authority to order his attack without consulting Congress? What does the U.S. Constitution say about war? Image A demonstrator holds a shredded copy of the Constitution of the United States on Sunday. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns Congress dozens of powers like collecting taxes and creating post offices, as well as the power to 'declare war' and to 'raise and support armies.' The Constitution's framers considered that clause a crucial check on presidential power, according to an essay by the law professors Michael D. Ramsey and Stephen I. Vladeck for the National Constitution Center. Early in American history, Congress approved even limited conflicts, including frontier clashes with Native American tribes. But the question is complicated by Article II of the Constitution, which delineates the powers of the president, and which designates the U.S. leader as the 'commander in chief' of the U.S. military. Presidents of both parties, relying heavily on legal opinions written by executive-branch lawyers, have cited that language to justify military action without congressional involvement. Congress tried asserting itself with the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the American president must 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.' But presidents have repeatedly disregarded that language or argued for a narrow definition of the 'introduction' of forces. Congress has done little to enforce the resolution. What are members of Congress saying about the U.S. strikes? Image President Trump walking across the South Lawn as he returned to the White House on Sunday. Credit... Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times Democrats have almost uniformly criticized Mr. Trump for acting without legislative consent, and a few Republicans have as well. 'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution — ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war,' Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland, said in a statement echoed by many of his colleagues. Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, told CBS News that there was no 'imminent threat to the United States' from Iran. Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, said on the same CBS program that Congress must act this week to assert a role in any further U.S. military action. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Mr. Kaine said. 'This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump's urging, without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress.' Some Democrats say Mr. Trump has already gone unforgivably far. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York called on Saturday night for Mr. Trump's impeachment. Hawkish Republicans rejected such talk. 'He had all the authority he needs under the Constitution,' Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told NBC News on Sunday. Mr. Graham cited Mr. Trump's power as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution. 'Congress can declare war, or cut off funding. We can't be the commander in chief. You can't have 535 commander-in-chiefs,' Mr. Graham said, referring to the combined number of U.S. representatives and senators. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Mr. Graham noted that Congress has made formal war declarations in only five conflicts, and none since World War II. However, there has been a legal equivalent from Congress that President George W. Bush was the last American leader to successfully seek: an authorization for the use of military force, often called an A.U.M.F. What are legal scholars saying? Image Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi of Iran called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter. Credit... Khalil Hamra/Associated Press Several lawyers and scholars who have studied the international law of armed conflict say the United States is without a doubt at war with Iran for purposes of application of that law, and that Mr. Trump acted in violation of international conventions. 'The short answer is that this is, in my view, illegal under both international law and U.S. domestic law,' said Oona Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School who has worked at the Defense Department. Brian Finucane, a former lawyer at the State Department, agreed that Mr. Trump needed to ask Congress for authorization beforehand. He also said 'there is certainly a U.S. armed conflict with Iran, so the law of war applies.' On Sunday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, called the U.S. attack an 'outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation' of international law and of the United Nations charter, which forbids U.N. members from violating the sovereignty of other members. Mr. Araghchi did not specifically say that his country is now at war with America. Mr. Finucane also said the United States had violated the U.N. charter. Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University who has also worked at the Defense Department, said 'one important matter for both domestic law and especially international law is the issue of 'imminence.'' The Trump administration is justifying the U.S. attack by saying Iran's development of a nuclear weapon was imminent, Mr. Goodman noted. But 'the law would require that the attack would be imminent,' he said, and 'it is very hard to see how the administration can meet that test under even the most charitable legal assessment.' Even if one were to focus on the question of a nuclear bomb, U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran had not yet decided to make such a weapon, even though it had developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for doing so. How often have presidents sought congressional approval for war? Image The furor over the sudden strikes also follows years of bipartisan efforts in Congress to try to place greater limits on a president's ability to order military action, efforts that arose because of disastrous American wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times In the decades since Congress declared war on Japan and Germany in 1941, U.S. presidents have repeatedly joined or started major conflicts without congressional consent. President Harry S. Truman sent U.S. forces into Korea. President Ronald Reagan ordered military action in Libya, Grenada and Lebanon; President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama; President Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of mostly Serbian targets in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War; President Barack Obama joined a 2011 NATO bombing campaign against the government of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya and led a military campaign against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. Mr. Obama broke with this trend in September 2013 when he decided against launching a planned strike against Syria without first seeking congressional authorization. The strike was unpopular in Congress, which never held a vote, and Mr. Obama did not act. President George W. Bush won separate congressional authorizations for the use of military force against Afghanistan and Iraq before ordering invasions of those countries in 2001 and 2003. In the years since the Al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, several presidents have also ordered countless airstrikes and special operations raids on foreign soil to kill accused terrorists. Those have largely relied on broad interpretations of the two authorizations for the use of military force that Congress granted the executive branch for the so-called war on terror. Emma Ashford, a scholar of U.S. foreign policy at the Stimson Center, said that in the post-9/11 wars, 'some presidents have largely stopped asking permission at all.' In January 2020, Mr. Trump chose not to consult Congress before ordering an airstrike that killed a senior Iranian military commander, Qassim Suleimani, while he was visiting Iraq. Many members of Congress called that a clear act of war that was likely to begin wider hostilities. Iran responded by firing 27 missiles at U.S. forces in Iraq, inflicting traumatic brain injuries on about 100 U.S. troops. But the conflict did not expand further. Last year, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. ordered U.S. airstrikes against the Houthi militia in Yemen without getting congressional permission, and Mr. Trump did the same this year. Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Military officials say that Saturday's strike in Iran, carried out by B-2 stealth bombers, encountered no resistance. But critics say the action invites Iranian retaliation that could escalate into full-scale war. What happens next Image Advances in military technology, including drones and precision-guided munitions, have allowed presidents to take action with minimal initial risk to U.S. forces. Credit... Eric Lee for The New York Times G.O.P. leaders in the House and Senate have signaled support for the strike, but Democrats and a few Republicans are demanding that Congress approve any further military action. Mr. Kaine, who serves on the committees on armed services and foreign relations, introduced a Senate resolution last week requiring that Mr. Trump get explicit congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. Mr. Kaine on Sunday said the measure was still relevant and that he hoped it would come to a vote this week. Mr. Massie, the Kentucky Republican, introduced a similar war powers resolution last week in the House with Ro Khanna, Democrat of California. 'When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war,' Mr. Massie wrote on social media on Sunday. Mr. Massie said he was 'amazed at the mental gymnastics' Mr. Trump's defenders have employed to argue the United States was not entering a war by attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. Megan Mineiro contributed reporting.

an hour ago

Clerk who denied same-sex marriage licenses in 2015 is still fighting Supreme Court's ruling

The Kentucky county clerk who became known around the world for her opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling that legalized same-sex marriage is still arguing in court that it should be overturned. Kim Davis became a cultural lightning rod 10 years ago, bringing national media and conservative religious leaders to eastern Kentucky as she continued for weeks to deny the licenses. She later met Pope Francis in Rome and was parodied on 'Saturday Night Live.' Davis began denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015. Videos of a same-sex couple arguing with Davis in the clerk's office over their denial of a license drew national attention to her office. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015. Davis was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky Legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses. Davis said her faith forbade her from what she saw as an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Faith leaders and conservative political leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and then-Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin rallied to her cause. After her release from jail, Davis addressed the media, saying that issuing same-sex marriage licenses 'would be conflicting with God's definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This would be an act of disobedience to my God.' Davis declined a request for an interview from The Associated Press for this story. In 2018, one of the men who had confronted Davis over her defiance ran for her office. David Ermold said he believed people in Rowan County were sick of Davis and wanted to move on. When he went to file his papers for the Democratic primary, Davis, a Republican, was there in her capacity as clerk to sign him up. Sitting across a desk from each other, the cordial meeting contrasted the first time they met three years earlier. Both candidates lost; Ermold in the primary and Davis in the general election. She has not returned to politics. Davis' lawyers are attempting again to get her case before the Supreme Court, after the high court declined to hear an appeal from her in 2020. A federal judge has ordered Davis to pay a total of $360,000 in damages and attorney fees to Ermold and his partner. Davis lost a bid in March to have her appeal of that ruling heard by a federal appeals court, but she will appeal again to the Supreme Court. Her attorney, Mat Staver of the Liberty Counsel, said the goal is affirm Davis' constitutional rights and 'overturn Obergefell.'

Boston Globe

3 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Democrats, and some Republicans, question Trump's unilateral attack

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The foreign minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least two or three years,'' Kaine noted on 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the U.S. should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday.' Advertisement He disagreed with the assertions of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stressed on Sunday shows that the U.S. is not at war with Iran. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Kaine said. Advertisement A few Republicans are also breaking with the president on the issue. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), who this month introduced a resolution alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) to require congressional approval before any strike, said Sunday that there had been 'no imminent threat' to the U.S. to justify Trump's unilateral actions against Iran. The U.S. House, Massie noted, was on recess last week. If the situation in Iran was as urgent as the Trump administration has made it seem, the White House should have called lawmakers back to Washington. 'Frankly, we should've debated this,' Massie told CBS's 'Face the Nation.' '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.'' Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on Saturday also questioned the legality of Trump's attacks, saying on social media, 'it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' As news of the strikes broke Saturday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), who has also opposed U.S. intervention in Iran, posted on X that 'this is not our fight.' Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) called on the Senate to enforce the War Powers Act - the measure that would reaffirm Congress's right to declare war. Schumer urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) to bring the act to a vote on the floor 'immediately.' Schumer said Saturday that confronting Iran's 'ruthless campaign of terror' requires 'strategic clarity.' Trump, he said, must be held accountable by Congress. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' he said. Advertisement But Trump's defenders pointed to other authority in the Constitution, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) pointing to Article II, which allows the president some war powers. 'You can't have 535 commander in chiefs,' Graham said, referring to the number of lawmakers in the House and Senate. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Graham, in an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, argued that while Congress has declared war only a handful of times in U.S. history, and has not since World War II, other presidents have launched military operations without congressional authorization. In 2011, for example, President Barack Obama ordered a military intervention in Libya without lawmakers' approval. In other instances, Congress has given the president the power to order limited military attacks by passing an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AMUF. Some point out that the 2002 authorization, which gave the president the authority to use armed forces against 'the continuing threat posed by Iraq,' is still active, despite efforts by some lawmakers in recent years to rescind the authority. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the attack soon after the U.S. planes left Iranian airspace. Various lawmakers also argued that Trump should not have bombarded Iranian nuclear facilities because U.S. intelligence did not show that the country was at risk of an Iranian attack. 'You don't want to take an action like this without a strong basis - that is, that Iran was imminently pursuing a bomb, and we simply don't have the intelligence or, if we do, it hasn't been shared with the Congress,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) said Sunday on CNN's 'State of the Union.' Advertisement The top two Republicans in Congress - House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana) and Thune - were quick to praise what they said was Trump's decisiveness even though the president made the decision to attack Iran without Congress's input. Both Thune and Johnson were briefed ahead of the strike, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation. Johnson said Trump's attack should serve as a 'clear reminder to our adversaries and allies' that Trump 'means what he says.' 'President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision and clarity,' Johnson said. Other lawmakers warned about the strikes snowballing into a prolonged conflict, as Iran has asserted that it reserved 'all options' to act in self-defense. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), who served in the Marines, warned the nation should not be 'dragged into another endless war in the Middle East.' 'I would know. I saw close friends die next to me serving as a Marine in a high-combat unit in Iraq,' he said in a statement. 'Each of these deaths was needless.' A few House Democrats called for Trump's impeachment over the strikes. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) wrote on X. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' But Schiff - who served as impeachment manager during Trump's first impeachment trial - told CNN that congressional Republicans have made it clear that they have a 'high bar' for impeachment processes against Trump. Advertisement 'The better remedy, frankly, is - if Republicans will show any backbone whatsoever - to pass a war powers resolution to prevent any further military action,' he said. At least one Senate Democrat, however, openly applauded Trump's actions on Saturday night. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by [Trump],' Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) said. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Marianna Sotomayor, Amy B Wang and Niha Masih contributed to this report.