Section 230 even provides for a section regarding illegal activity on the internet. If the President made a specific threat, which is an illegal action, that could have been turned over to law enforcement for investigation and prosecution. The problem is that the social media companies are defining what is a threat, and simply state they perceive Trump’s rhetoric to be so, not that it actually qualifies as such. This also is another example of editorial control, as they have redefined, beyond the legal definition that could be prosecuted, what a threat is. Again, this sets up these companies from self-denial of the protections contained in Section 230.

In fact, Section 230 states that the goal is “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal and State regulation. Now, these companies want to argue that although they are free of Federal and State regulation, they are free to regulate their own services as they see fit, essentially rendering those services outside of the free market. When Amazon unilaterally decides that Parler is not entitled to the protections from Section 230, but they are in denying Parler those same protections, they are in a way, invalidating their own access to the protections. Sure they are free to choose with whom they do business, but they cannot suggest that they are a part of a “vibrant and competitive free market” while denying services to a firm, which is also protected from liability within Section 230.

Is Parler not an “interactive computer service?” Are they not entitled to the protections of Section 230? If they are, and I want to be very thorough here, WHAT GIVES APPLE, GOOGLE, AMAZON, OR ANY OTHER INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDER THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE THAT THEY NEED TO EDIT, DELETE OR OTHERWISE CONTROL THE CONTENT ON PARLER, WHEN THE STANDARD ISN’T THE SAME FOR OTHERS? Again, they want to be able to hide behind Section 230 protections to deny another company of their own right to Section 230 protections. It is certainly cowardice if not criminal.