Enquirer attorney blasts anti-censorship bill

Freaking gosh, I can't even believe I have to say this! Our side should be the ones fighting for the free flow of ideas, not idly sitting by as Big Tech monopolies impede it - even in the rare event that they screw up and block those we oppose.

I found a column on the Cincinnati Enquirer website titled "Trump's hurt feelings not a reason to introduce a law that violates the Constitution." Ninety-nine percent of the time, I would agree. The outgoing Commander-in-Chief has hurt my feelings too - and hurt me economically - but I wouldn't violate the Constitution over it.

But it turns out the bill in question is hardly unconstitutional. The column was written by Jack Greiner, a lawyer who - ironically enough - represents the Enquirer in First Amendment cases. Let this sink in: A First Amendment attorney completely misses the mark on First Amendment legislation.

The bill is Kentucky's S.B. 111, introduced by 2 Republican legislators. The Kentucky GOP has a record for right-wing hackery, but this is a bill that Democrats and progressives need to get behind. In fact, if it passes, the bill would be of greater benefit to the left. Were I a legislator, I'd be happy to introduce a bill like this. The bill - titled the Stop Social Media Censorship Act - would make major social media platforms liable for civil damages if they censor protected speech.

Trust me, legislation like this is sorely needed. I posted here on Sunday that I've learned the hard way over the past 25 years how badly the left has been targeted by online muzzling. Social media platforms have become monopolies on par with telephone giants. The effort to fight social media censorship is like the 'Net neutrality fight.

One of Greiner's main arguments is that the Kentucky bill would violate the all-important Communications Decency Act. I swear I'm not making this up. The clause cited by Greiner goes on about "lewd" and "filthy" material, as if that clause was written by the PMRC.

S.B. 111 should not be an automatic windfall for everyone who feels wronged by Twitter or Facebook. But social media monopolies should be governed by the same guidelines we should expect the phone company to follow.

That the Democrats have thus far failed to support commonsense measures like this is an Achilles' heel for a party that lately has become almost all Achilles' heel. But it's mind-blowing that someone from a newspaper opposes a bill that strengthens First Amendment protections, when newspapers are supposed to be champions of a free press.