Senator Baldwin is right. Section 230 protects abortion speech and LGBTQ resources online.

Fight for the Future has been fighting back attempts to repeal or sunset Section 230 with grassroots support and organizations through badinternetbills.com and whatissection230.org.

The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Section 230 this morning, 30 years after the birth of this law that has protected user-generated speech from censorship on the internet. Despite continued push back from free expression experts and human rights groups, there are currently seven live pieces of legislation at the Congressional level that could impact Section 230’s future and its ability to protect important speech online.

Section 230 is the favorite go-to target for members of Congress who are unwilling to really dive into the policies that could actually break down Big Tech’s surveillance capitalist business model and protect kids online, but this hearing illuminated some clearheaded perspectives on why protecting Section 230 is imperative for lawmakers who care about abortion access and LGBTQ communities.

Senator Tammy Baldwin (WI) quite succinctly pointed out how Section 230’s protection of speech that the Trump administration would like to censor, is lifesaving as crackdowns on public programs, healthcare, and speech continue elsewhere.

“President Trump has attempted to rewrite history by forcing museums to remove content. Brendan Carr, the head of the FCC, has threatened broadcasters licenses, including very recently, who air unflattering news about this administration and this president,” Senator Baldwin said. “The internet can be a place that people turn when information is being limited or attempted to be censored by the government. Thinking about now and recent events, it might be where somebody accesses information about abortion or LGBTQ identity or scientific research on climate change or your rights against discrimination in the workplace.”

“I live in Texas where abortion has been criminalized for years and abortion seekers have to rely on online information and traveling out of the state to access abortion care. Without Section 230, abortion funds, organizations fighting for LGBTQ healthcare, and activists would all face mass censorship, as Big Tech companies and social media platforms would jump to censor the information that isn’t palatable enough for their lawyers,” said Sarah Philips, Campaign Director at Fight for the Future. “As public resources shrink and marginalized groups are increasingly criminalized, online spaces where we share information, resources, and fight back against fascism are lifelines. All of this could be gutted without Section 230. Instead of attacking the Big Tech business model that thrives on its exploitation of our data and a massive surveillance apparatus, Congress is once again engaging in political theater about repealing Section 230, which would actually strengthen the grip of Big Tech, as the only companies able to survive the legal landscape of a dystopic, post-Section 230 internet.”