Connect with us


Trump Administration Will ‘Clarify’ Section 230 Regulations After Big Tech’s Electoral Interference

It’s about time.



The Trump administration announced on Thursday that the Federal Communications Commission will be issuing a clarification regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has given special immunities to Big Tech firms which exempt from liability for content published on their platforms.

“Members of all three branches of the federal government have expressed serious concerns about the prevailing interpretation of the immunity set forth in Section 230 of the Communications Act. There is bipartisan support in Congress to reform the law. The U.S. Department of Commerce has petitioned the Commission to ‘clarify ambiguities in section 230.’ And earlier this week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that courts have relied upon ‘policy and purpose arguments to grant sweeping protections to Internet platforms’ that appear to go far beyond the actual text of the provision,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wrote in a statement.

“As elected officials consider whether to change the law, the question remains: What does Section 230 currently mean? Many advance an overly broad interpretation that in some cases shields social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text of Section 230. The Commission’s General Counsel has informed me that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning,” he added.

Trending: GOP Establishment Threatens President Trump with Impeachment Unless He Denies Election Fraud

Pai noted that his clarification of Section 230 is in concordance with his limited government ethos. Section 230 is a bureaucratic regulation set up by big government to allow powerful corporations to shirk liabilities and form monopolies by design.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Throughout my tenure at the Federal Communications Commission, I have favored regulatory parity, transparency, and free expression. Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters,” Pai wrote.

His official statement can be seen here:

Pro-Big Brother liberals are now painting themselves as the defenders of the free market and private property in an attempt to protect Silicon Valley’s right to censor. One such shameful example comes from TechDirt, an outlet that opposes Section 230 reform.

“He’s a lying hypocrite with no principles, no backbone, and should be regarded as a complete joke,” TechDirt reporter Mike Masnick wrote in his tantrum about Pai.

“In terms of actual impact, all this will serve to do is rile people up, waste a ton of time, and not actually change anything. Because it can’t. But it will create a huge mess in the meantime, distracting everybody, and wasting a ton of resource,” he added.

Perhaps the public should be riled up about Big Tech censorship since it has emerged as an existential threat to democracy, which Big League Politics has noted:

A day after censoring the New York Post for exposing Hunter Biden’s emails, Twitter has doubled down by censoring a newly published article that explains Hunter’s crony and possibly illicit business dealings with China.

“Twitter is censoring us — again,” announced Post editor Sohrab Ahmari in a tweet.

“This is what I — an editor at America’s oldest continuously published newspaper, founded by Alexander Hamilton — get when I try to post our follow-up story on Hunter’s financial shenanigans with the Chinese regime,” he added.

When Ahmari attempted to post the article, he received a “Tweet Not Sent” notice that read as follows: “Your Tweet could not be sent because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful. Visit our Help Center to learn more.”

The Post report details Hunter’s interactions with a powerful Chinese energy firm. The revelations in the article indicate that Hunter was receiving millions from Chinese interests because of his name. The Biden campaign is attempting to ignore the scandal while the Big Tech overlords attempt to keep the news from going viral.

“There is no need for comment on any so-called information provided by Rudy Giuliani,” Biden lawyer George Mesires said.

“He has been pushing widely discredited conspiracy theories about the Biden family, openly relying on actors tied to Russian intelligence. His record of dishonesty in these matters speaks for itself,” Mesires added.

It is very telling that liberals only support private property and the free market when companies are enacting Draconian censorship and effectively nullifying the 1st Amendment. ISIS has nothing on the Democrat Party when it comes to hostility toward American values.


Canadian Court Rules That Businessman Has the Right to Sue Twitter for Defamation

This could be a gamechanger.



A Canadian court has ruled that Frank Giustra, a billionaire from British Columbia who sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation, is able to sue Twitter for defamation.

Giustra is suing Twitter after users of the platform accused him of being connected to “PizzaGate,” the theory that gained traction on social media that there is a child sex ring of some sort operating out of a ritzy Washington D.C. pizza joint.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers would not comment on the merits of Giustra’s case when he made his ruling. He noted that Twitter would be protected in American courts due to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, but those protections might not necessarily apply in the Canadian courts.

“The presumption is that a defendant should be sued in only one jurisdiction for an alleged wrong, but that is not a simple goal to achieve fairly for internet defamation,” Myers wrote.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“I do not agree with Twitter who argues that ‘of all places in the world, the plaintiff’s reputation has not been harmed in B.C.’,” he added.

Giustra is happy with Myers’ decision and hopes that he is able to hold Twitter accountable once the case is heard in court.

“I hope this lawsuit will help raise public awareness of the real harm to society if social media platforms are not held responsible for the content posted and published on their sites,” he said. 

“I believe that words do matter, and recent events have demonstrated that hate speech can incite violence with deadly consequences,” Giustra added.

Big League Politics has reported on how Twitter and other tech giants have hidden behind legal protections in order to enforce a partisan political agenda:

The communications directors at many Big Tech entities – including Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat – have been revealed as veteran Democrat Party operatives…

Much of what is posted by Starbuck holds up to journalistic scrutiny. Twitter communications director Nick Pacillo once worked as a spokesman for Democrat vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris while she was California attorney general. It has been alleged that he continues to serve her in his privileged role with Twitter, as supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) believe the platform blocked donations for their preferred presidential candidate while he was running against Harris.

Meanwhile Andy Stone – who serves as Facebook’s Policy Communications Director – has been working in various capacities to assure Democrat victory for over a decade. He was celebrated for his career of service to the Democrats when he joined their House Majority PAC in 2012…

If Big Tech cannot be defeated in the courts, a full-scale nationalization of these entities may be the last option to stop the permanent manifestation of the Orwellian nightmare.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!