An ageing U.S. law that facilitated the rise of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube has once again been thrust into the spotlight this week after President Donald Trump said that it should be “terminated” over national security concerns.

The legal provision, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, is facing growing opposition from both sides of the political divide, despite claims from social media and tech giants that it is critical to their continued existence.

Section 230 offers a degree of immunity to websites for any content uploaded by third parties—be it in the form of a social media post, classified ad or user review.

It gives sites acting in “good faith” the protection to remove any objectionable material, regardless of whether it is “constitutionally protected.” The law is broad, saying that the rules apply to any “provider or user of an interactive computer service.”

Section 230 does not offer a total blanket protection, however, and exemptions are in place meaning lawsuits are possible for criminal and intellectual property cases.

What does the legalese mean in reality? It means the platforms can let users post status updates, product reviews, forum messages or upload videos without having to vet or pre -approve the content, and without fearing it could result in a lawsuit.

In theory, a lack of Section 230 protection would mean websites and users have to aggressively monitor the content being shared online—a radically different business model to many of the mainstream social media or tech companies that are structured around user-generated content over a paywall or subscription service.

“Given the sheer size of user-generated websites it would be infeasible for online intermediaries to prevent objectionable content from cropping up on their site,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, explains online.

“Rather than face potential liability for their users’ actions, most would likely not host any user content at all or would need to protect themselves by being actively engaged in censoring what we say, what we see, and what we do online.”

While it has been referred to as the backbone of the modern internet, calls to revoke or reform the provision are growing among both Democrats and Republicans.

While they have different reasons, both President Donald Trump and President-elect Joe Biden have both voiced the opinion that Section 230 should be revoked.

Trump has suggested social media sites are censoring conservative voices, including his own, while Biden previously told The New York Times the law needed changing as the platforms have played a key role in the spreading of viral misinformation.

Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) tweeted in May that Facebook and Twitter should be seen as publishers if they continue to “editorialize and censor.”

That same month, President Trump unveiled an executive order declaring Section 230 needed to be clarified as the social networks were now too powerful.

It read: “Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike.”

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg , Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified in the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation last month, a hearing that questioned if 230 immunity enabled “bad behavior .”

Out of the trio, it was Zuckerberg who voiced support for the law to be updated, noting that politicians on both sides were “unhappy with the status quo.”

“I believe Congress should update the law to make sure it’s working as intended. We support the ideas around transparency and industry collaboration that are being discussed in some of the current bipartisan proposals,” Zuckerberg said, adding he would be “ready to work with Congress” on shaping any future regulation.

It remains to be seen if the internet law will be “terminated” under the incoming Biden administration, as Trump has urged. As noted by Reuters, only Congress can change Section 230. While some proposals exist, no decision is likely until next year.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai said October 15 that his agency had the “legal authority to interpret Section 230,” but it was unclear whether any changes were imminent, and the move was criticized by Democrats.

As noted by The Wall Street Journal Thursday, the decision will now fall on Biden’s FCC pick. The president-elect has not formally proposed a Section 230 repeal.

And while there appears to be consensus among politicians that some aspects should be clarified, it’s clear that an broad agreement in Congress is unlikely.

“Repealing it outright is not viable,” Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) said last month, although conceded it will “be on the agenda next Congress.”

Democratic Senator Ron Wyden , who originally co-authored the 1996 provision, blasted Republicans’ arguments about revoking the Section 230 provision after the trio of tech giant bosses testified before the c ongressional committee on October 28.

“I don’t believe my Republican colleagues have read the First Amendment, let alone Section 230. Their obsession with forcing private companies to print misinformation, lies and hate speech is unconstitutional,” Sen. Wyden said in a statement.

Experts have previously told Newsweek it is unlikely Section 230 will be revoked, and will instead see amendments or clarifications to the current provision.

Angelo Carusone , CEO of watchdog Media Mattes, told Newsweek: “Modifications to it or additional laws that both establish more legal safeguards for negligence in addressing extremism, dangerous disinformation and other inauthentic activity—as well as liability for violating those safeguards—is extremely likely.”

p:last-of-type::after,.node-type-slideshow .article-body>p:last-of-type::after{content:none}]]>

The U.S. Supreme Court’s new conservative majority voted 5 to 4 on Wednesday to bar restrictions on religious services in New York, which had been imposed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo to limit the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the state.

Cuomo told reporters in a Thursday morning teleconference that the decision was a way for the new Supreme Court to “express its politics and philosophy.” The decision was praised by many faith leaders and conservatives.

“I think that the Supreme Court ruling on the religious gatherings is more illustrative of the Supreme Court than anything else,” Cuomo said following the decision. “It’s irrelevant from a practical impact because the zone that they were talking about has already been moved, it expired last week. I think this was really just an opportunity for the Court to express its philosophy and politics. It doesn’t have any practical effect.”

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn cheered the ruling after the court sided with the diocese and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues.

“I am grateful by the decision of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, who have recognized the clear First Amendment violation and urgent need for relief in this case,” said The Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn, in a statement.

“I have said from the beginning the restrictions imposed by Governor Cuomo were an overreach that did not take into account the size of our churches or the safety protocols that have kept parishioners safe,” he continued, later adding: “Our churches have not been the cause of any outbreaks. We have taken our legal battle this far because we should be considered essential, for what could be more essential than safely gathering in prayer in a time of pandemic.”

Agudath Israel of America mirrored this sentiment, stating in a celebratory post on their website that the decision will have a “nationwide legal impact on the status of religious freedom for years to come.”

“This is an historic victory,” said Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Executive Vice President of Agudath Israel, “This landmark decision will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts that do not treat religion with the respect demanded by the Constitution.”

Following the decision, the first decisive one for newly appointed conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, others quickly took to social media to share their reactions, either with a great deal of respect for the decision – and contempt of Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent – or condemning the court for percieved disregard of health experts and public health.

An array of conservative politicians, including House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, celebrated the decision on Twitter. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn, as well as the president’s fiercest supporters including chairman of the American Conservative Union Matt Schlapp, shared that the decision can be brought back to President Donald Trump‘s multiple conservative SCOTUS appointees.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted that the Supreme Court decision was a “major win” for religious Americans and slammed Cuomo and other Democrat elected officials for having “acted as totalitarians,” accusing them of using the COVID-19 outbreak as a way to suppress people’s right to worship. He also criticized Roberts’ decision to side with the three liberal Justices in dissenting.

“Yet again Chief Justice Roberts willing to set aside his duty to enforce the Constitution when state or local leaders are hostile to religion under the guise of public health,” the Republican senator tweeted. “But thankfully, this time he and the liberal justices lost.”

He added: “As families celebrate #Thanksgiving today, they can also give thanks that they will be able to gather to pray during Christmas this year without fear of totalitarian Democrats who want to stop us from exercising our fundamental right to worship.”

Missouri GOP Senator Josh Hawley also celebrated the decision, echoing Cruz’s accusations of religious discrimination from Democrats.

“Big news from the Supreme Court late last night – Court strikes down NY Gov Cuomo’s discrimination against churches and synagogues,” Hawley tweeted on Thursday. “Justice Barrett the key to the majority.”

California Rep. Kevin McCarthy criticized Cuomo for his response to the pandemic and doubted the science behind the restrictions.

“Power-hungry Democrats like Cuomo have used the pandemic as an excuse to target people of faith with radical restrictions,” he tweeted. “It has no basis in science, and the Supreme Court agrees.”

Florida Rep. Anthony Sabatini thanked Trump for having “saved the Supreme Court” following Barrett’s appointment and slammed former President George W. Bush, a Republican, for appointing “liberal” Roberts as Chief Justice.

Meanwhile, several public health officials and others spoke out against the ruling. Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defence Fund, celebrated the four justices who voted against unsafe gatherings during a pandemic.

“What a truly terrifying appalling decision,” Ifill tweeted. “Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in this case, as in the prison case, & Justices Ginsburg & Kagan’s in the COVID voting cases, will be the written record of how 4 justices on the SCOTUS valiantly tried to save the nation from this pandemic.”

Dr. Peter Hotez, professor and co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, told CNN’s Boris Sanchez on Thursday that the ruling “devalues lives.”

“This is not about our religious freedom or civil liberties,” Hotez said. “This is about all hands on deck to save lives until we get everybody vaccinated. Human life is not cheap. That Supreme Court ruling devalues lives.”

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the decision a product of “bad logic” and noted that it’s a “really bad omen” for president-elect Joe Biden‘s policies, especially environmental ones.

“The first major decision from the Trump-packed court — and, naturally, it will kill people,” Krugman tweeted. “The bad logic is obvious. Suppose I adhere to a religion whose rituals include dumping neurotoxins into public reservoirs. Does the principle of religious freedom give me the right to do that?”

He added: “Freedom of belief, yes; the right to hurt other people in tangible ways — which large gatherings in a pandemic definitely do — no.”

p:last-of-type::after,.node-type-slideshow .article-body>p:last-of-type::after{content:none}]]>

Fox News briefly explored whether President Donald Trump could pardon himself after he retweeted a call on Thanksgiving Day from his ally Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz to consider doing so.

After pardoning former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Trump on Thursday shared a call from Gaetz encouraging him to pardon himself. “Trump should pardon Michael Flynn, he should pardon the Thanksgiving Turkey, he should pardon everyone from himself to his administration officials to Joe Exotic if he has too,” Gaetz told Fox News prior to Flynn’s pardoning.

Following news reports of Trump’s retweet, Fox News host Julie Banderas asked Reuters correspondent Jeff Mason whether he is authorized to pardon himself. “The president cannot pardon himself though, can he?” she said.

“There’s been a lot of question marks and speculation about that,” Mason responded. “My understanding, the answer to that is no. But I suspect that’s something we will continue to see debated in the weeks to come before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated on January 20th.”

Trump could face numerous lawsuits and criminal investigations upon leaving office, which his role as Commander in Chief has protected him from over the past four years. While it is unclear whether he has the authority to do so, some have suggested that he might attempt to preemptively protect himself from the prospect of facing criminal charges.

Trump previously insisted that he has the power to pardon himself amid former special counsel Robert Mueller‘s investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. “I do have an absolute right to pardon myself,” the president told reporters in June 2018. “But I will never have to do it because I didn’t do anything wrong.”

“As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?” the president added in a tweet. “In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!”

Last week, Brian Kalt, a Michigan State University constitutional law professor, told Newsweek, “My standard answer here is ‘Well, he can try.”

However, most voters indicated in a recent poll that Trump should not be able to pardon himself. A NBC LX/YouGov survey of 1,200 registered voters, conducted November 22, showed 72 percent saying that U.S. presidents should not be allowed to pardon themselves, compared to 13 percent who said they should.

Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment.

p:last-of-type::after,.node-type-slideshow .article-body>p:last-of-type::after{content:none}]]>

The U.S. Supreme Court’s new conservative majority voted 5 to 4 on Wednesday to bar restrictions on religious services in New York, which had been imposed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo to limit the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the state.

Cuomo told reporters in a Thursday morning teleconference that the decision was a way for the new Supreme Court to “express its politics and philosophy.” The decision was praised by many faith leaders and conservatives.

“I think that the Supreme Court ruling on the religious gatherings is more illustrative of the Supreme Court than anything else,” Cuomo said following the decision. “It’s irrelevant from a practical impact because the zone that they were talking about has already been moved, it expired last week. I think this was really just an opportunity for the Court to express its philosophy and politics. It doesn’t have any practical effect.”

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn cheered the ruling after the court sided with the diocese and two Orthodox Jewish synagogues.

“I am grateful by the decision of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, who have recognized the clear First Amendment violation and urgent need for relief in this case,” said The Most Reverend Nicholas DiMarzio, Bishop of Brooklyn, in a statement.

“I have said from the beginning the restrictions imposed by Governor Cuomo were an overreach that did not take into account the size of our churches or the safety protocols that have kept parishioners safe,” he continued, later adding: “Our churches have not been the cause of any outbreaks. We have taken our legal battle this far because we should be considered essential, for what could be more essential than safely gathering in prayer in a time of pandemic.”

Agudath Israel of America mirrored this sentiment, stating in a celebratory post on their website that the decision will have a “nationwide legal impact on the status of religious freedom for years to come.”

“This is an historic victory,” said Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, Executive Vice President of Agudath Israel, “This landmark decision will ensure that religious practices and religious institutions will be protected from government edicts that do not treat religion with the respect demanded by the Constitution.”

Following the decision, the first decisive one for newly appointed conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, others quickly took to social media to share their reactions, either with a great deal of respect for the decision – and contempt of Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent – or condemning the court for percieved disregard of health experts and public health.

An array of conservative politicians, including House Minority Whip Steve Scalise and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, celebrated the decision on Twitter. White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and Trump campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn, as well as the president’s fiercest supporters including chairman of the American Conservative Union Matt Schlapp, shared that the decision can be brought back to President Donald Trump‘s multiple conservative SCOTUS appointees.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted that the Supreme Court decision was a “major win” for religious Americans and slammed Cuomo and other Democrat elected officials for having “acted as totalitarians,” accusing them of using the COVID-19 outbreak as a way to suppress people’s right to worship. He also criticized Roberts’ decision to side with the three liberal Justices in dissenting.

“Yet again Chief Justice Roberts willing to set aside his duty to enforce the Constitution when state or local leaders are hostile to religion under the guise of public health,” the Republican senator tweeted. “But thankfully, this time he and the liberal justices lost.”

He added: “As families celebrate #Thanksgiving today, they can also give thanks that they will be able to gather to pray during Christmas this year without fear of totalitarian Democrats who want to stop us from exercising our fundamental right to worship.”

Missouri GOP Senator Josh Hawley also celebrated the decision, echoing Cruz’s accusations of religious discrimination from Democrats.

“Big news from the Supreme Court late last night – Court strikes down NY Gov Cuomo’s discrimination against churches and synagogues,” Hawley tweeted on Thursday. “Justice Barrett the key to the majority.”

California Rep. Kevin McCarthy criticized Cuomo for his response to the pandemic and doubted the science behind the restrictions.

“Power-hungry Democrats like Cuomo have used the pandemic as an excuse to target people of faith with radical restrictions,” he tweeted. “It has no basis in science, and the Supreme Court agrees.”

Florida Rep. Anthony Sabatini thanked Trump for having “saved the Supreme Court” following Barrett’s appointment and slammed former President George W. Bush, a Republican, for appointing “liberal” Roberts as Chief Justice.

Meanwhile, several public health officials and others spoke out against the ruling. Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defence Fund, celebrated the four justices who voted against unsafe gatherings during a pandemic.

“What a truly terrifying appalling decision,” Ifill tweeted. “Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in this case, as in the prison case, & Justices Ginsburg & Kagan’s in the COVID voting cases, will be the written record of how 4 justices on the SCOTUS valiantly tried to save the nation from this pandemic.”

Dr. Peter Hotez, professor and co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, told CNN’s Boris Sanchez on Thursday that the ruling “devalues lives.”

“This is not about our religious freedom or civil liberties,” Hotez said. “This is about all hands on deck to save lives until we get everybody vaccinated. Human life is not cheap. That Supreme Court ruling devalues lives.”

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the decision a product of “bad logic” and noted that it’s a “really bad omen” for president-elect Joe Biden‘s policies, especially environmental ones.

“The first major decision from the Trump-packed court — and, naturally, it will kill people,” Krugman tweeted. “The bad logic is obvious. Suppose I adhere to a religion whose rituals include dumping neurotoxins into public reservoirs. Does the principle of religious freedom give me the right to do that?”

He added: “Freedom of belief, yes; the right to hurt other people in tangible ways — which large gatherings in a pandemic definitely do — no.”

p:last-of-type::after,.node-type-slideshow .article-body>p:last-of-type::after{content:none}]]>