Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) has long been one of the few refreshing voices out of Washington, D.C., when it comes to free speech, including free speech on social media and elsewhere in the digital realm. He was one of just two senators to vote against FOSTA, the law that started the trend of trying to carve out Section 230 exceptions for every bad thing.

As readers of this newsletter know, Section 230 has been fundamental to the development and flourishing of free speech online.

Now, Paul has changed his mind about it. “I will pursue legislation toward” ending Section 230’s protections for tech companies, the Kentucky Republican wrote in the New York Post this week.

A Section 230 Refresher

For those who need a refresher (if not, skip to the next section): Section 230 of the Communications Act protects tech companies and their users from frivolous lawsuits and spurious charges. It says: “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.” If someone else is speaking (or posting), they—not you or Instagram or Reddit or YouTube or any other entity—are legally liable for that speech.

Politicians, state attorneys general, and people looking to make money off tech companies that they blame for their troubles hate Section 230. It stops the latter—including all sorts of ambulance-chasing lawyers—from getting big payouts from tech companies over speech for which these companies merely served as an unwitting conduit. It stops attorneys general from making good on big, splashy lawsuits framed around fighting the latest moral panic. And it prevents politicians from being more in control of what we all can say online.

If a politician doesn’t like something that someone has posted about them on the internet, doesn’t like their Google search results, or resents the fact that people can speak freely—and sometimes falsely—about political issues, it would be a lot easier to censor whatever it is that’s irking them in a world without Section 230. They could simply go to a tech platform hosting that speech and threaten a lawsuit if it was not removed.

Tech platforms might very well win many such lawsuits on First Amendment grounds, if they had the resources to fight them and chose that route. But it would be a lot easier, in many cases, for them to simply give in and do politicians’ bidding, rather than fight a protracted lawsuit. Section 230 gives them the impetus to resist and ensures that any suits that go forward will likely be over quickly, in their favor.

But here’s the key: Section 230 does not stop authorities from punishing companies for violations of federal law, and it does not stop anyone from going after the speakers of any illegal content. If someone posts a true threat on Facebook, they can still be hauled in for questioning about it. If someone uses Google ads to commit fraud, they’re not magically exempted from punishment for that fraud. And if someone posts a defamatory rant about you on X, you can still sue them for that rant.

Keep reading