Forced childbirth radicals Not happy with the closure of the abortion clinic. They also want to scrub accurate information about access to abortion from the internet. At the post-Gnawing In the world, the ability of abortion advocates and providers to raise funds and organize online is a life-threatening issue, advocating online speech about abortion. Democrats who have mistakenly attacked Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act need to wake up now. Unless we start listening to human rights experts, sex workers, LGBTQ + people, and reproductive rights group warnings, Democrats can help right-wing enthusiasts reach their goal of mass censorship of online content about abortion. I can do it.
Because the Supreme Court overthrown Gnawing On June 24, a frontline reproductive justice group counterattacked on the ground, in court, and online. National Abortion Funds are collecting large amounts of donations through crowdfunding platforms. Ad hoc groups were born in places like Reddit and Facebook. There, people share resources and promote housing and travel for those in need. But this is all fragile.
Texas has already enacted a law known as SB8, which allows individuals to sue individuals or institutions to facilitate access to abortion care. This includes sharing information online about managing the abortion process, obtaining abortion medications, and searching for clinics that offer abortions. The National Right to Life Committee has released a model state law that provides information and assistance on how to obtain an abortion or criminalizes the host. Specifically, it states that anti-selection legislation needs to be developed to prevent state residents from seeking abortion in legal states. This law may be passed in some states.
Section 230 is the last line of defense to keep assisted reproductive technology support, information and funding online. Under Section 230, Internet platforms that host and moderate user-generated content will generally not be able to sue for that content. Section 230 is not absolute. If the platform develops or creates content, it does not provide an exemption. It also does not provide an exemption from the enforcement of federal criminal law. But decisively, it protects against criminal liability from state law.
This means that due to the existence of Section 230 today, proceedings from groups against abortion regarding criminal proceedings initiated by the State Attorney General for Assisted Reproductive Technology or forced childbirth will be immediately dismissed. If Section 230 is weakened, online platforms such as GoFundMe and Twitter, web hosting services, and payment processors such as PayPal and Venmo will be debilitating and expensive in state law enforcement and civil lawsuits alleging that they violate state law. Face an onslaught. Even if these proceedings ultimately fail, without Section 230 as a defense to dismiss them quickly, even the largest platforms would be very expensive.
Forced childbirth militants have filed proceedings, are well-funded, and are ideologically motivated. Technology companies are interested in making money. Many online platforms do not spend tens of millions of dollars in court battles, but instead “race to the bottom” and comply with the most restrictive state laws. They severely restrict access to information about abortion and change their own rules about what they allow. As a result, countless groups, pages, online communities, nonprofits, and healthcare access funds may be closed and removed from the Internet. From r / AuntieNetwork to donation options and educational content on the Planned Parenthood website. We live in countries where Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas lawmakers can set rules for online speech across the country.