Whistleblower Exposes How Section 230 Permits Publishers to Commit Defamation Without Consequence

A whistleblower has emerged to tell his own personal story about how the Huffington Post circulated false sexual assault allegations against him and got away with it by hiding behind Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Journalist Jordan Chariton shared his story in response to a post by President Trump advocating for Section 230’s repeal about how this big government regulatory overreach allowed the fake news media to destroy his good name.

He explained how HuffPo bloggers orchestrated the lie in the run up to the #MeToo witch hunts that have put due process and the presumption of innocence in jeopardy:

Chariton lost significant business opportunities because of their hit piece:

Even though there were significant damages to Chariton’s reputation and the HuffPo blogger admitted they did a poor job with the article, he could not receive any restitution because of Section 230:

In addition, Chariton received word that there was an institutional conspiracy to destroy and defame him by disreputable interests in the left-wing media:

Even though his career was nearly destroyed, Chariton does not blame the #MeToo movement but hopes journalists hold themselves to a higher standard:

However, regulatory changes will likely be needed to protect journalism and hold monolithic corporate institutions accountable in the current digital landscape.

Big League Politics has reported on the reform efforts of Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and other lawmakers in Washington D.C. opposed to Big Tech’s monopoly power:

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has emerged as the leading reformer against social media censorship, as he is going after their special immunity privileges under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

As it states right now, Section 230 states that “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.”

Howley’s bill, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act, would remove that exemption for Big Tech firms if they act like publishers instead of neutral platforms. Corporations would have to comply with external audits proving their algorithms and content moderation are not biased.

“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” Hawley said in a statement. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”

“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley added. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public. This legislation simply states that if the tech giants want to keep their government-granted immunity, they must bring transparency and accountability to their editorial processes and prove that they don’t discriminate.”

… Full text of the legislation can be seen here.

Section 230 gives the most powerful corporations in the world carte blanche to destroy the rights of ordinary people. This heinous act must be reformed or abolished for internet freedom to sustain itself in the years to come.