Supreme Court shouldn't mess with internet

It's not often some arcane section of the regulatory code is so universally reviled that it's known by its section number. Such is the case with Section 230, which was originally included in the federal Communications Decency Act — the 1996 law designed to protect minors from accessing obscene materials in the emergent internet.

The broader law hasn't achieved its goals, but Section 230 has – without exaggeration — shaped the development of the modern internet despite its mere 26 words: “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.”

That means such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are not liable for their users' posts. A publisher is responsible for content on its website or publication because it edits and reviews the material. A platform merely hosts what others publish. Without Section 230, any one of millions of potentially inflammatory comments would open these companies to crippling litigation.

Section 230 has become a hot button for social-media critics on the Right and Left because of the gray area of content moderation. Platforms have posting rules and they employ moderators to remove content that violates those rules. Their decisions are subjective and often controversial — such as when companies banned certain users or removed COVID-19 “misinformation.”

Conservatives accuse the platforms of going too far by censoring their viewpoints. Progressives accuse the companies of not going far enough by allowing the proliferation of hate speech. Both sides have focused their ire on that liability protection. Many voices – from conservative think tanks to the Biden administration – want Section 230 eliminated or “reformed.”

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the matter in a case known as Gonzalez

v. Google. The plaintiffs are the parents of a California college student who was killed in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015. The family claims that social-media firms (the case is now limited to Google) didn't sufficiently police their sites to remove extremist content from Islamic radical groups.

One certainly can argue that the companies did not do enough to remove Islamic State content from their sites, but if the family's lawsuit succeeds it could, as the New York Times explained, “have potentially seismic ramifications for the social media platforms that have become conduits of communication, commerce and culture for billions of people.”

The court could take any number of approaches, but if it eliminates Section 230 the platforms would have a stark choice: Either behave as publishers and review everything that users post on their sites or take a hands-off approach. The former will require armies of moderators and almost certainly will lead to more claims of censorship. The latter would mean anyone could post anything, opening the sites to extremists and spammers.

Some groups have called for reforming Section 230, a middle approach that the court could embrace. Yet reforms — such as limits on what types of posts the platforms can moderate — ultimately depend upon value judgments. That would lead to a similar result to eliminating the protection by leaving decisions in the hands of courts or regulators.

We're stuck waiting to see what the high court will do, but we suspect that any changes to Section 230 will only make matters worse.

Senate Bill 637

Re “State should reject absurd banking bill” (Feb. 23):

I was pleasantly surprised to read your position on SB 637 and the very well articulated reasons — many that those of us in law enforcement have been screaming about for years. You nailed it perfectly.

FYI: after decades of living in the IE, I had canceled the newspaper because of the growing lack of unbiased, independent journalism. I've decided to give the paper another try.

How about doing an investigative piece on the disastrous results of AB 109, Props 47 and 57, etc.? I once had a political science professor who never told us his opinion and encouraged robust dialogue in class. A student asked him one time why he bounces all over the issues and never provides the class with his opinion. The professor replied that his job was not to convince us to believe and think like him, but rather to develop the logic and reasoning skills to fully understand an issue before forming an opinion or taking action. A valuable life lesson sadly missing in most of our major learning institutions.

I believe that modern journalism has lost that concept as evidenced by so much dogma weaved throughout just about every topic, story... Yes, op-eds are exactly that, but it would be nice if some of your reporters would stop interjecting their personal political bias into just about every topic they cover. There are so many examples of intentionally omitting information or unnecessarily using words to inflame others and show a lack of respect for different opinions. Any data provided on a topic should contain context.

Most of the public simply want our media to report thoroughly on important topics and let us form our own opinions. Keep your personal bias and opinions where they belong — op-eds. I guarantee that your viewership and subscriptions would skyrocket.

— John Carpenter,

Riverside

California health care

Re “Single-payer stunt makes a comeback” (Feb. 21):

Thank you for the excellent editorial on the single-payer issue. Only 9.5% of Californians are uninsured with the vast majority of them being undocumented.

So Assemblyman Kalra wants to take a sledgehammer to our current healthcare system by eliminating all private insurance.

And what do we get for that?

Higher costs, higher taxes and zero choice for Californians.

Oh by the way, it is to be replaced by benefits yet to be determined, to be serviced by an entity yet to be identified, to include new tax provisions yet to be detailed. Gee, what could go wrong with that?

The U.S. cannot default

Re “Report: U.S. could default on debt as early as summer” (Feb. 23):

The New York Times piece you published is an example of liberal fear-mongering. The

U.S. cannot and will not default on its debt whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.

The reason is simple arithmetic. According to a Feb. 20 Wall Street Journal article by David Rivkin and Lee Casey, the federal government “collects roughly $450 billion a month in tax revenue, more than enough to cover the $55 billion or so in monthly debt service.”

The Constitution says that first $55 billion must be paid, and we clearly have more than enough money to do it. What we don't have money for is all the profligate spending beyond our means the government has committed to for the past two years. Cutting that is a political problem, not a constitutional one. For the media to suggest a default is inevitable, or even possible, is gross irresponsibility.

Tobacco ban when other drugs are everywhere

Re “`Just say no' to ban on tobacco sales” (Feb. 22):

Isn't it embarrassing that the state looks to ban all tobacco but you can purchase marijuana in any shape or form and fentanyl is everywhere.

All this is doing is controlling tax paying citizens their right to choose, while California will lose billions in taxable income for a state hurting for money. But there will always be a black market for those who choose to use tobacco. Genius move once again by our leaders that don't think.

— Jon Reitz, San Pedro