I said it when the left was in power and trying to censor the right, and now I'm still saying it. Freedom of speech is paramount. It is the primary mechanism by which truth is contested, refined, and occasionally discovered. No authority, left or right, well-intentioned, or evil is reliably capable of distinguishing true ideas from false ones in advance. Or at all, often enough. History is littered with doctrines once deemed dangerous or heretical that later proved correct, and with orthodoxies that collapsed under scrutiny. By protecting speech broadly society preserves the feedback loops that allow error correction. This is true regardless of the political aims or claimed political aims of the group attempting suppression. Free speech is a matter of individual dignity and moral agency. To speak is to participate as a reasoning adult rather than as a managed subject. When people are allowed to articulate beliefs, argue, persuade, and dissent, they are treated as responsible actors capable of judgment. This openness reduces the pressure toward violence and extremism by providing lawful outlets for grievance and reform.
On the internet, these principles become even more important. Online platforms function as the modern public square, mediating discourse at a scale no prior medium approached. Section 230 recognizes this reality by drawing a crucial distinction: platforms are not the speakers of user-generated content, and they should not be legally punished for hosting lawful expression. Without it, platforms would be forced into extreme over-censorship or simply cease to host open discussion at all, chilling speech through liability fear rather than democratic choice. I say repeal section 230 and replace it with something MORE potent.
