The idea that government should punish companies if their content moderation policies aren't politically neutral ignores fact that some politics is extremely odious.

Treating all political speech as neutral is government mandated tolerance of hate speech.https://t.co/Dvk0yNObFh

— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) June 21, 2019

So Republicans want the federal government to regulate speech again. https://t.co/tfGEWP4SUV

— Kim-Mai Cutler (@kimmaicutler) June 19, 2019

Sen. Hawley has "proposed a massively stupid and clearly unconstitutional bill" to wipe out CDA 230 protections for internet platforms, a plan "so shockingly dumb and obviously unconstitutional it boggles the mind that Hawley is a constitutional lawyer" https://t.co/poA7iDrDnU

— Mathew Ingram (@mathewi) June 19, 2019

This bears some similarities to the Fairness Doctrine, which has a long history in media regulation, as well as net neutrality. It also has a National industrial Recovery Act vibe, which I don't love. Regardless the discussion over Section 230 is advancing. https://t.co/9iLNg9YnUv

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) June 19, 2019

Despite its name, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act would make the Internet less safe for free expression, not more. https://t.co/sRNy7rRygb

— EFF (@EFF) June 21, 2019

Spoiler: “neutrality” in politics and journalism simply doesn’t exist.

It’s not a technological problem concerning digital platforms: it’s a fact of life. https://t.co/1m3lrA6YLZ

— Fabio Chiusi (@fabiochiusi) June 19, 2019

NEW → Sen. Hawley released a new bill that will remove the immunity big tech companies receive under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that proves that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral. https://t.co/s2SGsmnZZm pic.twitter.com/3o1UtpBh5b

— Senator Hawley Press Office (@SenHawleyPress) June 19, 2019

Huge proposal by Sen. Josh Hawley to take away 230 protections from Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc if they don’t submit to recurring FTC review to prove they moderate political speech “neutrally”

I don’t know that that’s the right answer, but here we go https://t.co/SWzXV3UCJi

— nilay patel (@reckless) June 19, 2019

Reagan used to say, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Well, Senator Josh Hawley is from the government and he's here to help. https://t.co/cud2CG13XC

— James Pethokoukis (@JimPethokoukis) June 20, 2019

Despite its name, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act would make the Internet less safe for free expression, not more. https://t.co/sRNy7rRygb

— EFF (@EFF) June 21, 2019

MO's Christian Nationalist Senator, Josh Hawley, introduced bill to "regulate" tech firms b/c he's convinced the White Right is being "supressed" when FB, Twitter, et al remove racist violent hate speech. He wants to protect bigots, not privacy. https://t.co/RKrRy1mOTH

— Charles Jaco (@charlesjaco1) June 21, 2019

Washington’s first attempt at regulating Big Tech is Big Fail https://t.co/GNVBwqpgMl

— Vox (@voxdotcom) June 21, 2019

Washington’s first attempt at regulating Big Tech is a joke https://t.co/r2E3p86y9d

— Recode (@Recode) June 21, 2019

Washington’s first attempt at regulating Big Tech is a joke https://t.co/IC4SMxt5lP

— #TheResistance (@SocialPowerOne1) June 21, 2019

.@JonSchweppe writing in @firstthingsmag: Our government has a responsibility to defend our unalienable rights. Not all regulations are inherently bad. This one is so good it just might save the Internet.https://t.co/MnwpWdO6E0

— American Principles (@approject) June 21, 2019

If you listen to @HawleyMO—or read his bill—it’s clear this legislation would defend free speech in the public square from a few multinational corporations’ illegal efforts to censor American citizens and meddle in the 2020 election. #Section230

https://t.co/lUnR2CARMR

— Jon Schweppe (@JonSchweppe) June 21, 2019

Hawley Defends the Public Square | Jon Schweppe | First Things https://t.co/3a0WNbOWdl

— Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) June 20, 2019

Hawley Defends the Public Square | Jon Schweppe | First Things https://t.co/LMHyrIRFPB

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) June 21, 2019

Senator Hawley is right.https://t.co/lUnR2CARMR

— Jon Schweppe (@JonSchweppe) June 20, 2019

Hawley Defends the Public Square https://t.co/TS7wgu67Ss

— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) June 20, 2019

Hawley Defends the Public Squarehttps://t.co/rmPFiAGp0E

— Matthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) June 20, 2019

Josh Hawley insists he's justified in robbing tech companies of bedrock legal platform protections because the CDA dispenses those protections "in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship."

The CDA says literally nothing of the kind.https://t.co/QAxZwdyLW2

— Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) June 19, 2019

Nothing says “conservative” more than giving sweeping powers over corporate behavior to a bigger federal bureaucracy, amirite? https://t.co/fl230EMlch

— Rachael Larimore (@RachaelBL) June 19, 2019

The whole legislative justification for the radical expansion of government power over tech companies Josh Hawley is proposing is based on an incredibly, laughably spurious reading of the 1996 Communications Decency Act https://t.co/QAxZwdyLW2

— Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) June 19, 2019

What's more conservative than a call for a vast expansion of the federal bureaucracy? @HawleyMO #BigBrother #1A

Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill https://t.co/f0yeI4YpqK via @BulwarkOnline pic.twitter.com/1L0q3Vf9yn

— StridentConservative (@StridentConserv) June 20, 2019

.@gop
Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill - The Bulwark https://t.co/9fUKFXprXo

— #Amash2020 #PrinciplesFirst (@SahilcdesaiC) June 20, 2019

. ⁦@EggerDC⁩ on Josh Hawley’s bid to expand government control over the internet... https://t.co/X9PFuBGJfx

— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) June 19, 2019

Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill https://t.co/3x36FLW5yX via @BulwarkOnline

— Shannon Last (@shannon_last) June 20, 2019

Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill https://t.co/davxxXXGeq via @BulwarkOnline by @eggerdc

— Jim Swift (@JimSwiftDC) June 19, 2019

This is very good (the article, I mean) | Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill https://t.co/kPPmT3nMkO via @BulwarkOnline

— Avi Woolf, WTF Conservative? (@AviWoolf) June 19, 2019

It's a bad bill, folks. The bill is very bad https://t.co/QAxZwdyLW2

— Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) June 19, 2019

The idea that government should punish companies if their content moderation policies aren't politically neutral ignores fact that some politics is extremely odious.

Treating all political speech as neutral is government mandated tolerance of hate speech.https://t.co/Dvk0yNObFh

— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) June 21, 2019

This is fucked up. And stupid. https://t.co/dl01A4XE36

— habit forming timothy (@TimCushing) June 20, 2019

More reading on his insanely stupid bill proposal, if you are into that kind of thing. https://t.co/qhwjwIynYS

— Chris ODonnell (@chrisod) June 19, 2019

If social media firms are worried about being liable for user generated content, they're likely to be more aggressive in taking down any vaguely political content, out of fear that it could put them in legal jeopardy. https://t.co/622Rttgil1

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) June 19, 2019

New post: "Ending immunity for Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube would result in more censorship, not less" https://t.co/622Rttgil1

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) June 19, 2019

Josh Hawley's ‘‘Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act" would lead to more censorship, not less. https://t.co/622Rttgil1

— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) June 19, 2019

"However flawed, the subsidy argument does get Sen. @HawleyMO to a licensing regime for social media." One point in favor of the Missouri senator's bill: it could generate some good precedent when #SCOTUS strikes it down [@JohnSamplesCato] https://t.co/Nqndu7AKg9

— Walter Olson (@walterolson) June 21, 2019

Lots of people say they want Washington to take a firmer hand and start regulating Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies, which have had almost zero oversight for years.

But what if our elected officials can’t hack it?https://t.co/sNd55lih4b

— Recode (@Recode) June 21, 2019

Some conservatives wince at the idea of greater regulation of Big Tech companies. But what other option do we have when powerful multinational corporations are infringing upon the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens?https://t.co/lUnR2CARMR

— Jon Schweppe (@JonSchweppe) June 20, 2019