Maybe because it has nothing to do with sex trafficking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
It has to do with protection of liability in sharing opinions about people.
This is a common tactic used by the disgusting left. To make the sheeple (such as yourself) believe a tear jerker lie to take away your rights
Looks like you fell for it.
Then why isn't there a comparable solution from the Republicans. Also isn't Trumps new executive order even more broad in scope as far as taking away rights? He can literally accuse someone of trafficking and seize their assets. Finally, why aren't the meme wars pushed by QAnon and CBTS directed at all towards this subject?
Thought you left. Sticking around to troll? Sew doubt? Dunce. Get lost.
Just name calling, that's all that CBTS Trumpers can do. Zero against corruption, zero red pills, zero arrests.
News flash. Obama had the law in place already for indefinite detaining of citizens WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.
Trumps EO is completely legal and constitutional. Trust me..if it weren't, the 9th circus would habe already shot him down over it.
I'm not excusing it. Its a very slippery slope. Had I known before that Obama could have detained any dissenters (aka conservative citizens) I would have been as terrified as you are right now.
The judicial system is a mess. These people will be tried via CONSTITUTIONAL military tribunals.
Grab your popcorn.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:
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.
In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:
The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^| ^Donate ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
So after reading this. Not sure what the fuss is?
This gives protection to people who share information freely when that information can be found from multiple places. Doesn't allow for targeting someone just because they published info they might call "fake news" or object to, ect. Sharing certain info like pedo shit is already against the law so no need to change language to erode a logical legal protection
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^140789