FOX settled the Dominion lawsuit for $800 million, as being responsible for its content. It produced it, edited it, then broadcast it. The output was fully produced by employees salaried and on contract. What might that have to do with Section 230 Internet publishing law regarding liability for content?

 Reason, a site that appears to have a libertarian slant, published, "How Ron DeSantis, Tucker Carlson, and Elon Musk Will Change the Section 230 Debate --- Expect the very foundations of the internet to come under attack from politicians and the mainstream media." - by Robby Soave | 5.25.2023

In particular, Section 230 would be in question if Musk/Twitter pays Carlson to produce content, even if that content is not edited or affected by forum personnel. Simply the question of even that level of sponsorship being a forum-publisher tie-in of a kind, and not an independent publisher paying for an outlet's services. Carlson could have a subscription contract where public access is for a paid subscription fee, in effect a paywall situation, but then how about advertiser sponsorship and how that money gets distributed, the import of such a set-up would still exist. If Musk/Twitter imposes the access fee and handles the advertising sales for "independent" content, like any other user but shares a fraction of advertising income, where is Section 230 hosting "non-liability" when the major money income channel is run by the host - and shared? We do not know what contract Carlson will work under, while hosted by Musk/Twitter as in some way, as we have been led to expect. Actual contract terms will matter. Musk has to have thought along these lines with a cya intent after FOX popped multi-millions. He is no fool.

These are thoughts engendered by the very title of the Reason item. That is before reading any of the item contents, just from the title. The item begins -

Share on Twitter Share by email Print friendly version Copy page URL

Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, Ron DeSantis (Illustration: Lex Villena; Gage Skidmore, Steve Jurvetson)

Twitter is in the midst of a transformation: It is becoming a right-leaning news platform. This will have profound consequences for the debate about Section 230, the federal statute that shields websites from some liability created by users, which effectively allows the internet to function as a lightly restricted space.

Elon Musk purchased Twitter last year with the stated goal of making the site more hospitable to all kinds of political expression. But Musk is himself increasingly associated with the right; on Wednesday, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced his bid for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination during a Twitter Spaces live event alongside Musk, an avowed supporter of DeSantis.

Musk's Twitter is also attracting top conservative talent. After acrimoniously parting ways with Fox News, conservative superstar Tucker Carlson declared that he would relaunch his show on Twitter. The Daily Wire, a conservative media empire, recently decided to release all of its podcast videos on the site as well. "If Elon Musk stands by his commitment to make Twitter a home for free speech and delivers on monetization opportunities and more sophisticated analytics for content creators, I imagine we will invest even more into the platform," said Daily Wire CEO Jeremy Boreing.

Neither The Daily Wire nor Carlson appears to have special deals with Musk, who has said that they will be bound to the same rules as anyone else posting content on the site. But consider Musk's situation with respect to Carlson, and compare it to the host's previous relationship with Fox News.

After all, Carlson's departure from Fox News followed the resolution of the company's legal dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. Dominion sued Fox, arguing that its programming had been defamatory; guests who appeared on Fox News shows, including Carlson's, were accused of making false statements about Dominion. Under traditional defamation law, Fox News was liable for statements on Carlson's show.

Twitter is not.

As an online platform, Twitter cannot be sued in most cases for its users' speech. That's the entire point of Section 230: to empower websites to craft whatever speech policies are best for them, without forcing them to incur risk. Without Section 230, social media sites would have to moderate content far more aggressively. If Facebook and Twitter could be sued for users' speech, then they wouldn't be able to let users post at will, without approval or review.

"One advantage of Section 230 is it allows different platforms to try different models of online content moderation to serve specific audiences," says Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy research fellow at the Cato Institute. "Recently, we've seen this with Elon Musk's changes to Twitter's content moderation rules in ways that create new opportunities for conservative news content."

At least prior to Musk's Twitter takeover, this underlying reality has vexed some on the right. Leading Republicans—including former President Donald Trump, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), and others—have alleged unfairness, arguing that social media sites do not deserve this liability shield if they operate in a politically biased manner.

That squares with the thoughts the headline generated within the Crabgrass mind, but manages to tightly put flesh to the skeletal thinking. There is more to the item beyond that quote and readers are urged to seek out and read the original. 

In particular, the item considers two party politics as Twitter moves to the right. That is the heart of why politicians will adjust their views of Section 230 as things become more political, with Musk saying he'd like a Town Square image where politicians from any direction (even Bernie?), would be able to access Twitter equally and speech would be free of a censoring hand. Musk would like that with all the advertising money his, but if he competes with TV news, as seems his intent, he will have to get into follower numbers and audience demographics in negotiating advertising terms and conditions.

A bottom line, lawyers need to eat and the status of a newly organized Twitter will be tested in court. And Congress is political with the politics of Musk's new adventure, in practice, being watched there also. Section 230 may come to mean something different than what most pundits see it to mean now. By amendment, or by judicial scrutiny