Page 10 - சுதந்திரம் நிறுவனம் இல் டென்வர் News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Twenty-five years ago, I was a party to the Supreme Court case of Reno v ACLU et al. We won it 9-0, a slam dunk. That case ruled parts of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 unconstitutional, and established rock-solid First Amendment protections for the then-emerging internet. Or so we thought. Fortunately, an important part of the law wasn’t challenged. Section 230, with certain exceptions, shields telecommunications providers from liability for content their users produce. This wise measure helped create the modern internet, and with it, social media. I understand defending social media is not a popular position. Nonetheless, it’s the right one. Not because awful and stupid speech isn’t awful and stupid, but because it is deservedly protected by the First Amendment. Awful and stupid speech is bad. Banning awfulness and stupidity is worse.

United statesBarry faginDonald trumpChris coxMark zuckerbergJoe bidenSupreme courtNational civil liberties awardIndependence institute in denverTelecommunications actFirst amendmentBig techFormer president donald trumpRon weydenRolling stoneFordham law