Charlie Kirk Assassination Sparks renews the 230s of the reform discussion

The assassination of the conservative activist Charlie Kerk Last week, the political debate on reforming a federal law that overlooks social media companies re -responsible for the content they publish.

Kirk’s assassination videos rapidly spread on social media after shooting at the campus of the University of Utah Valley, which acquired the life of the 31 -year -old Turning Point last week. Which created a huge challenge to Social media platforms To remove the video, perform content warnings or age gates to protect users from being exposed to them in their summaries.

The circulation of the Kerk assassination video on social media has resulted in the renewal of calls from legislators to address the federal law known as section 230, which provides responsibility for social media platforms.

“If you are angry at section 230. If you are angry at the social media companies that extreme our nation, you should be crazy,” said Senator Lindsi Graham, RS.C, on Sunday on NBC.MeetGraham added that “I have an invoice that allows you to sue these people. They are immune to lawsuits. “

Social media giants are scrambling to control

Section 230 The Communications Law was enacted as part of the law of decent communications in 1996 and provides immunity for online services to the content that third -party users published on their platforms.

It includes the provisions that protect service providers from responsibility for the content published by third-party users, as well as protection from responsibility for removing the voluntary goodwill to the content of the third party that finds the operator rejected-whether it is a constitutional protected.

Charlie Kerk’s social media platforms are acquired by millions of followers and subscribers since the assassination

“At the end of the day, I think section 230 does a few things,” Federal Communications Committee (FCC) Commissioner Brendan Carr said during his appearance at the Politico Ai & Tech summit on Tuesday. “Some things that work very well, some things there are a lot of questions about this.”

He pointed out that there are two main rulings in Section 230 and explained that the C-1 says if you leave another person’s speech, then you are not responsible for this content if this is adequate or arrogant in any way. I think this is a general ruling in general. This is what I call “a ruling in support of speech.” It encourages people to publish and express themselves. “

“On the other hand, you have this C-2 ruling that the courts have read as giving extensive immunity to all moderate types and content control. I think this is the place we have seen over the years many violations.”

According to what was reported, a suspect in Charlie Kirk admitted shooting in the dispute chat

“We have seen American individuals participating in the field of the town of digital, controlled by a purely reserve First amendment A letter of diversity of views on religious or medical issues.

The Federal Communications Committee chair said that he is expected to see how social media companies move forward with changes in moderate policies already underway, but the discussion is likely to continue on Section 230.

“I think the discussion about section 230 is still alive, but I think it is due to the changes we see on social media, I think, on my part, I am more confident but check the situation,” Car said.

Get Fox Business on the Go by clicking here

During the Tuesday session, Graham asked the director of the FBI Cash Patel If Sunseetting supports Section 230 to increase responsibility for companies that use their platforms to spread content related to children’s sexual exploitation.

“I am everything, I was everything, and I am happy to work with Congress to do this,” Patel said.