GoFundMe regulates content.
-
Jonathan Turkey
I previously wrote a column about the rising calls by Democratic leaders and activists for different forms of public and private censorship. Indeed, the recent extreme demands and controversy at the New York Times shows how speech controls have been a virtual article of faith for many. Twitter’s actions against Trump tweets are another example of the inconsistent use of such controls. Now GoFundMe has taken it upon itself to censor causes that it views as offensive in closing down a fundraiser by conservative political commentator Candace Owens in support of an Alabama cafe whose co-owner criticized the George Floyd protests. The question again is not whether we agree with such sentiments but the free speech implications of these forms of private censorship. Rather than respond to such controversial statements, critics today focus on silencing the speakers or barring their views or causes to be heard by others. What is interesting is that, by abandoning neutrality, GoFundMe is now affirming that it does regulate content and will face demands for more such action. That could undermine the position of these companies against the loss of immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act...
The immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is based on the theory that these sites are not responsible for content. Courts have interpreted the provision to give sweeping immunity for companies like Twitter and Facebook because they simply supply a forum for others to express themselves. These cites (sic) are now actively engaged in forms of private censorship.
As many on this blog will attest, I take a simple approach to free speech. The solution to any bad speech is good speech, not silencing of those with whom you disagree. I would take the same position with shutting down voices on the left as with the right. GoFundMe is a forum for people to express themselves through fundraising. It, like Twitter, is an important place for people to engage in free speech and association. I do not see why that mission is not enough. GoFundMe does not have to endorse such causes to allow people to gather at its site. Now however there will be additional claims made by those who want to silence people with opposing views. GoFundMe has invited such demands by engaging in content-based regulation.
-
@Axtremus said in GoFundMe regulates content.:
Don't like GoFuneMe? Go build your own crowd-funding site.
Circa 1895...Don't like Standard Oil? Start your own oil company.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Axtremus said in GoFundMe regulates content.:
Don't like GoFuneMe? Go build your own crowd-funding site.
Circa 1895...Don't like Standard Oil? Start your own oil company.
@Jolly said in GoFundMe regulates content.:
@Axtremus said in GoFundMe regulates content.:
Don't like GoFuneMe? Go build your own crowd-funding site.
Circa 1895...Don't like Standard Oil? Start your own oil company.
There is no regulatory impediment for you to start your own crowd-funding site, and there is no outsized incumbent with enough cloud deploying anti-competitive tactics to stop you from starting your own crowd-funding site. So go ahead and start your own crowd-funding site if you wish. I will applaud you for bringing more choices and more competition into the crowd-funding space.
