BestNetTech is off for the holidays! We'll be back soon, and until then don't forget to 
Dear Democrats: It Would Be Nice If You Could Lead, And Not Off A Cliff
from the suicide-squad dept
We really should have two major parties committed to upholding the Constitution. But at the moment we seem to have none. Because not only have the Republicans been captured by the corrupt fascism of Trump but, instead of standing against the grotesque assault on our democracy Trump has been perpetrating non-stop since January 20, Democrats keep trying to join in.
The latest inexcusable abdications of their duty to uphold the Constitution involve conspiring with Trump to tear up what’s left of the First Amendment with the Take It Down Act. Trump and his supporters may pay lip service to how much they hate jawboning, but this bill is a celebration of it, using government pressure on intermediaries as a means of inflicting as much censorship on online speech as their shriveled autocratic hearts desire. They may wrap their craven agenda in the idea that this law would help the most vulnerable, but only the most gormless would be foolish enough to believe that its power would be so limited when the text itself makes clear how rife it is for abuse. Yet there are Democrats—like Senator Amy Klobuchar, who has never met a First Amendment-violating bill she didn’t like—who are for some reason lining up with Melania “I don’t care” Trump to make sure its abusers might soon have that power.
If we are to get through this constitutional crisis it will be only because of the citizen discourse that the Internet enables. While traditional mass media fails us, the Internet allows us to share ideas and information without it. Laws like the Take It Down Act attack our ability to speak online by forcing the platforms we need to do it to turn against our speech in order to protect themselves. As does the dumber than dumb proposal by outgoing-Senator Dick Durbin, who wants his final gift to America to be to destroy the one law that makes discourse on the Internet possible: Section 230.
It’s time to repeal Section 230. We must be able to take social media companies to court for addicting kids and enabling drug trafficking on their platforms.
— Senator Dick Durbin (@durbin.senate.gov) March 6, 2025 at 5:40 PM
While it is technically true that Durbin hasn’t yet announced that he won’t run again, if this legally illiterate idea is his idea of good governance, then good riddance. Not only does he—a lawmaker!—not understand what Section 230 does—provide a practical defense against online censorship via jawboning pressure—but with his enthusiastic call for its destruction he is keen to use what leverage and influence he gains from his office to usher in everything that the law is a bulwark against: the fascism that Trump and his brethren would like America to surrender to by making it so that it will be all but impossible to speak out against it online.
Even in the best of times it is still political malpractice to push for any of these censorial policy agendas, including the other similar attempts that have recently surfaced. But these are not the best of times. These are the worst of times. Our democracy is under attack and it will take every American using every bit of power they possess to push back on it. The only thing to be done right now is to stand against it.
The nation is desperate for its elected officials tasked with protecting our democracy to finally get busy doing it, and if it won’t be Republicans then it must be Democrats who rise to the occasion. Yet here are Democrats not only persisting with normal order in the face of an imminent and unprecedented threat against our democracy but using it to increase the danger. Even if prioritizing collegiality over the direct action Trump and DOGE’s assault on our democratic institutions calls for could be justified as a means of dulling the edge of the worst through back channels, it is a shocking betrayal of public trust to use their position to sharpen it.
Because instead of leading the way to save our nation far too many Democrats are using the power and privilege they were entrusted with to undermine free speech, the last tool that the people themselves have to wield against tyranny. It makes these Democrats worse than useless in the fight to save our Constitutional order; it makes them accomplices in its dismantling.
Filed Under: amy klobuchar, democrats, dick durbin, free speech, internet, section 230, take it down act
Comments on “Dear Democrats: It Would Be Nice If You Could Lead, And Not Off A Cliff”
Fentanyl is the DEVIL!
Ok, momma. Everything is the devil to you!
Where, I am not saying Fentanyl is harmless, it seems to be the flavor of the month sorta speak. Lets toss tariffs on everyone because they aren’t stopping the flow of Fentanyl into the US! Cops shooting people because they thought they smelled Fentanyl on their breath and at the same time their partner needed to go to the hospital because someone said Fentanyl to them.
Please, for the love of god, if you are going to lie about how something works, at least don’t pick the current flavor of the month. You wonder why people have no faith in you while you pull this crap.
Re:
One of the most famous definitions is in The Cyphernomicon by the cypherpunk writer and engineer Tim May,[1] which states:
8.3.4. “How will privacy and anonymity be attacked?” […]
like so many other “computer hacker” items, as a tool for the “Four Horsemen”: drug-dealers, money-launderers, terrorists, and pedophiles.
17.5.7. “What limits on the Net are being proposed?” […]
Newspapers are complaining about the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse: terrorists, pedophiles, drug dealers, and money launderers
Re:
I think you meant “Ok, poppa.” It was Dick Durbin telling porkies about fentanyl, not Cathy Gellis.
LAWMAKERS
With all due respect, and Cathy I read pretty much everything you publicly write and then discuss with f&f.
Why call these people “lawmakers”? They are constitutional destroyers, no less worse than the “Constructionists” on SCOTUS, emboldened to bull-in-cina-shop-as-a-verb everything in their way to faux-save the faux-children in the name of eliminating the civil rights of US citizens and residents.
They’re law-destructionists, constitutional destroyers, and the orcs and the nazgul of orange-Suaron.
Giving them a title they are not … um… “worthy of” is granting them even more power.
Ehud
Neoliberals never actually had any plans beyond elbowing progressive elements to the fringe and collecting a check for maintaining BAU. That’s all they know how to do.
I’m a lifelong Democrat, not because I admire their ability to spend but because of their (possible) empathy towards those who aren’t wealthy white males. That said, the Colorado Democratic Party is doing everything possible to assure that I don’t vote for them in the future. There are currently 13 “gun control” measures before the Colorado legislature, possibly because the sponsors of these bills owe their allegiance to “Everytown for Gun Safety,” rather than the voters of Colorado. None of these bills do anything for gun safety, but they all do a bunch to hassle gun owners and gun stores. I’m not a fan of firearms, but, in a state where law enforcement response times can exceed one hour, I understand why some citizens choose to be armed. I would love to vote for candidates “of, by, and for the people,” but there aren’t any!
Re:
Basic description of the bills would help find sympathy. If it’s things like “lockup your guns you dipshit” don’t expect any. Since I don’t know better this post seems like it was written by a Republican.
Re:
If you are concerned about police response times, you are activating over the wrong solution and blaming the wrong people.
Re: Re: Its a complex problem with many parts to it.
Can you say that not 1 second of that 60 minute delay was due to the reason stated?
Personally I would go more for the sending of multiple cars for the same minor incident, 2,4 even 10 or 12.
Unfortunately other countries are learning from America, that a 2 party system means you be just as bad as the other guy as long as you can point to a few months where you appeared to be slightly better then the other guy. Or at least loudly promise a few things that may outweigh the bad memories from last time you where elected.
Re: Re: Re:
The comment didn’t provide a reason for the “delay.” It’s also a claim without evidence, so it could be an exaggeration or lacking in nuance.
Re:
Of all the things to obsess over, much less decide to cast your vote over, this is just silly. Oh no! The legislature might listen to people who don’t like guns being used to murder people! Does it occur to you that maybe other state citizens do agree with Everytown and so the legislators are siding with the voters?
About that particular Durbin post, the fact that the replies overwhelmingly outnumber the amount of likes puts a smile on my face.
Re:
One can only hope it’s reflected on the congress floor if he formally introduces the bill to the floor someday soon. Otherwise the US is doomed.
Re:
Durbin’s been about a useless fuck for a quarter century now. Guess he got tired of being useless and decided to swing to “actively harmful.”
Re: Re:
Maybe his brain finally gave out at 80 and his aides started driving.
Durbin is pulling this shit because his “think of the children” bill didn’t pass last year and he threatened to nuke 230 if it didn’t pass which he is doing now,
https://www.bestnettech.com/2024/03/13/senator-durbin-petulantly-promises-to-destroy-the-open-internet-if-he-doesnt-get-his-bad-save-the-children-internet-bill-passed/
He is acting like a spoiled 8 year old trapped in a 80 year old body throwing a tantrum because shit didn’t go his way.
What a fragile dried up piece of shit Durbin is.
Re:
On one end, I feel very pessimistic about the future with this bill he’s proposing this year.
But on the other, I also felt pessimistic about the passing of KOSA and we know how that went.
At the very least, forcing lawmakers to come face to face with the actual function of the law might prove..I don’t know, enlightening to them?
Why should anybody fight to uphold a document that was rendered moot by SCOTUS last year when they let an insurrectionist be allowed on the ballot and then gave the President the power of kings?
Scrap the worthless fucking thing and make new laws in line with other more sane Western democracies.
Re:
Would you trust Trump’s administration to write it? Or even the democratic opposition for that matter.
One would hope it's not a plan
Trump is pushing the constraining boundries out further than they’ve ever been. He’s amassing more and more power to the Executive Branch.
One would hope that the relative silence on all of this from Democrats is not a product of one simple truth: assuming we remain a democracy, the GOP will not be in power forever. I very much hope that the Dems aren’t greedily biding their time….
Re:
Ten bux says Gavin Newsom is already eyeing the White House with the idea of using its hoarded power to enact a bunch of neoliberal bullshit that claws back a small amount of the chaotic annihilation of the federal government under the Musk/Trump administration while still keeping the general status quo intact. I’m pretty sure any other Democrat that wants to run in 2028 (assuming we have an election that year) is doing the same because the ones most interested in having that power are all at least one step right of center like Newsom and most other federal-level Democrats.
Re: Re:
Restoring sanity and bringing back [insert Dem rebranding of equity and inclusion initiatives here] will be the rallying cry to get Newsom elected over the GOP candidate who wins the primary (which won’t be Vance). Then Newsom will make some gestures we’ll all welcome because the beaten dog will love not being beaten anymore even if it’s not the same as being treated well, but just be as milquetoast as Obama and Biden were in line with the DNC’s preference to get back to normal business, while being labeled a pinko commie by the MAGA crowd.
And we’ll vote for this gladly because the MAGA alternative is still more horrific.
More leftist leaning folk will make headlines with bold, inspirational campaigns, but get elbowed out of the way in the primary.
Re:
It’s hardly a ‘plus’ but I suspect the reason is a lot simpler and a lot more stupid: The reason they’re sitting on the sidelines is because they’re too gutless to speak out and don’t want to be ‘rude’ by ‘making a scene’, so they’re staying silent and hoping that the republicans (somehow) take themselves out so they don’t have to do anything themselves.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Section 230 even allows illegal housing and employment ads.
How is that helping discourse?
The law is junk.
Re:
[citation needed]
Re:
230 means hosts don’t get held liable for the posts of the users. If the user posts something that runs afoul of a law, that’s still illegal and the user is still able to be charged under the law that makes it illegal. The host can also remove the content if they want. 230 only outlaws suing or arresting the host for something they didn’t post themselves or knowingly and intentionally facilitate.
In short, no 230 doesn’t allow illegal ads.
Re:
S230 doesn’t protect you from any illegal act.
How exactly is your junk comment helping discourse?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Leading
Was hoping to read something intelligent about how the Dem’s might contribute something meaningful to the looming insolvency of out country, but instead it’s just more marxist blah blah about fascism and ….. noise.
Physician, heal thyself.
Re:
Bye Felicia
Re:
Marxism is when I don’t like something.
Re: Re:
I doubt most of the people throwing “MaRxiSm! around as an insult could define it if their life depended on it.
WhatAboutism
He’s a politician holding the highest office in his state. Of course he’s eyeing a national role. Your wager is, however, unprovable so untaken.
If you want to wager on whether he’ll run in 2028, then offer up some odds and I’ll be your huckleberry.
His comments this week against trangender athletes in women’s sports (why is it always about kid sports and specifically women kid sports that are used to test the boundaries of pushing transgender acceptance below ground level?) will not yield him that “California support” he otherwise broadly enjoys. That is my opinion.
E
Re:
A hundred bucks says Gavin Newsom never gets close to the presidency. A slicked hair Californian who looks like he’s from central casting? His looks and style are wrong wrong wrong.
Dems need to grasp that looks and style do matter, a lot. They need the right type. Bernie Sanders should start looking for a younger successor, or several candidates. Best not to be Jewish, sorry about that, or any other demographic the deplorables might reject. And not an AOC type.
They need to be focused on economic, kitchen table policies because the voters they are trying to sway don’t care about Gaza or Ukraine or anything further afield than their neighborhood grocery store where egg prices keep going up.
Re: Re:
You just want store-brand republicans with less crazy.
Which is preferable from the current GOP, yes, but how’s it gonna help move the overton window back towards normalcy?
Re: Re:
If being milquetoast Republicans didn’t work for the Dems in 2024, what makes you think it’ll work for them in 2028?
'Sure it'll give the tyrant more power but I don't want people to be mean to ME!'
After convicted felon Trump issued a public declaration during the state of the union address that he plans to use Take It Down to silence those saying mean things about him online any democrat supporter of the bill is exposing that either they:
A) Didn’t listen to a single thing he said, and haven’t listened to anyone pointing out that he said that.
B) Are demonstrating that they care more for their own personal comfort than the american public and those that voted them into office and are supporting the bill out of cowardice.
C) Are demonstrating that they don’t care that convicted felon Trump is planning to use it to silence dissenting voices because that’s a price they’re willing to have the public pay if it means a good soundbite about them Doing Something.
In none of these cases are they showing that they deserve to be in office and hold even the minimal power that they currently have, and hopefully they all get sacked and replaced with democrats that actually are interested in doing their gorram jobs the next election their seats are up for grabs.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You still cover your ears and scream “NO, YOU’RE WRONG!” at anyone who reminds you the DNC took RNC’s proto-fascism in 2009 and ran with it, so why should anyone take your “Guys, I’m soooooo concerned!” seriously?
You were warned. Now you learn the hard way.
Re:
That strike must have been hard for your family.
Re:
Feel free to explain to the class exactly what fascistic acts the DNC took. Please stick to the actual definition of fascism.
Not just congress
Sadly, section 230 is also coming under attack from journalists such as what happened on Jon Stewart’s latest podcast.
Re:
Why didn’t you link to the podcast in question and let people form their own conclusions? I went and watched it, and Maria Ressa makes some great points about shared reality and dictatorships and the necessary regulation of tech, as someone who survived Duterte’s regime.
https://youtu.be/jsHoX9ZpA_M?si=Zjp60uT2-q_fCCD6
To be fair, it isn’t the Democrats leading us off a cliff. They are following.
That’s actually true. You’ll often see me snorting the stuff directly from online through my keyboard.
(In reality, I get fentanyl lollipops from the pharmacy because I have end-stage cancer and fentanyl is the only thing that eases the pain now.)
Vichy Democrats
I’ve been a lifelong Democrat voter. While I’ve always claimed to be a Democrat, even officially choosing that party on registrations, I have occasionally voted for another party (even Republican) on some offices when that candidate seemed the better choice. But, never President. I’ve always voted Democrat for President.
But, over the past few years I’ve been increasingly despondant with the Democrat Party, and many of the “leaders” within it. Their “concerns” have been nothing more than performative ideation, with hardly anything that actually helps people, or at least helps the majority of people. Thus, we get the ridiculous from them. And the Democrats have been paying the price (losing) for their foolishness.
Now, they’re even more foolish. Thinking they could embrace Liz Cheney and win over the MAGA crowd, for instance. Abolishing the 1st Amendment to appease MAGA. Voting to support all of Trump’s cabinet. Where’s some spine?
So, I officially changed my party designation to “Independant”. I send any Democrat texts or emails to “Spam”. I’m done with their Vichy agenda. F ’em.
Re: Cheney is fine
I actually think the Cheney inclusion was good, on (at least) two levels: (1) rhetorically it should matter to be able to say, “Even SHE’S against this, so why aren’t you?”, and (2) you win an election by collecting the most voters, and collecting alienated Republicans is a way to include them in your total and not in the opponent’s.
The issue with Democrats is that they are being way too milquetoasty on everything else. They should be in the business of opposing Trump, and that’s the job they don’t seem to be doing on the whole. The Cheney issue is actually a rare example to the contrary.
It’s not bad that they stand up for similar things that she stands for. The bigger issue is that right now they seem to be standing for very little, or at least not what really needs to be stood for right now.
Re: Re:
On the flip side, trotting out Liz Cheney and being all “look how bipartisan we are!” and avoiding issues like trans rights deactivated a lot of the Dem base that didn’t want (and still doesn’t want) to see the Dems become Diet Republicans. I’m not saying I know exactly what would’ve activated more of the base, but I know that going after the illusory “Liz Cheney voters” demographic didn’t help. The truncated Harris campaign had plenty of other issues—like muzzling Tim Walz after he started getting somewhere with his “Republicans are *weird” rhetoric—but the biggest was by far the rightwards lean her campaign took in an attempt to peel off GOP voters.
Re: Re: Re: 'I don't vote republican, you're taking their positions, why would I vote for you?'
Instead of trying to flip ‘alienated’ republicans who are likely still going to vote R because that’s what they’ve always done and/or they’ve been conditioned to (perhaps literally) think that voting democrat is the same thing as voting for Satan himself democrat politicians should be focusing on getting as many democrat and independent voters to the polls and voting for them instead.
It doesn’t do you much good as a democrat candidate if after acting like a diet republican you’ve possibly flipped one republican voter if in the process you convinced ten democrat/independent voters not to vote for you.
The Dems have to stop being suckered into wasting their time playing defense of Republican talking points. When Dems are talking about minor issues like trans women in sports, which impacts very few people, you know they are being played again.
They need to talk about issues that matter. I’d say climate change, since that obviously has high impact on the whole world but there are too many idiots who deny it’s happening so I’d stick closer to the kitchen table and hammer away at the incompetence of Republicans at making working American’s lives better.
Above all, always be on offense. Never let them sucker you into defending anything. Notice how Trump never plays defense, he just ignores it and steamrollers on.
Re:
Talking about broader class-based issues that affect Americans across other sociopolitical lines is a good thing. Throwing an entire demographic of people under the bus to win an election is a bad thing. Tell me when I’m telling lies.
Re:
You think it’s the Dems pushing that issue?!
Re: Re:
It’s a damnably effective Republican strategy, as it relies on pure and unvarnished political hypocrisy.
Step One: Find a target. Currently, that’s trans people with a focus on the vanishingly small minority in sports.
Step Two: flood the zone with insane bullshit and back it up with the deep, deep bench of public speaking weirdos. “Make all trans people wear a flashing warning light in public” “My Megachurch said Jesus hates transwomen so I’m advocating public stoning” “This mid-ranked former collegiate swimmer is here to spend forty-five minutes recounting their complaints about this one time they lost years ago”
Step Three: Democrats can either accept the insanity, or speak up in even the most mild rebuke. “Actually, it’s wrong to kill people with rocks” or “Trans people are not actually sneaking in through your windows at night to make your pet geckoes gay”
Step Four: MY GOSH WHY ARE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT TRANS STUFF!?!? THEY ARE SO OBSESSED WITH IT!?!?!?! THEY CAN’T TALK ABOUT REAL POLICY!?!?!?!?! THIS PROVES MY BROSCIENCE CULTUREWAR COMPLAINTS THAT I MADE ON JOE ROGAN WHILE JOE NODDED AND AGREED WITH ME!!!! EGGS! BRANDON! MAGA!
Repeat.
Overton windows
That which has been discussed and shall be discussed no more is exactly that. There is no going back… which is why making the point in the NOW and not waiting for later to “try to go back” works.
If you’ve ever watched sci-fi time travel BS, that whole woulda coulda shoulda thing never adds up. Do it now. If you lack the balls, then justsay so. Don’t make it future-you’s problem.
I lack the balls to let authoritarian pricks ruin MY vision of THIS world and I do and will fight for it. You may not like my words or actions but … come join me and let’s make a difference. Or leave me out to hang (and I will) but I won’t regret being honest, true, ethical, or not suking DJT’s ring.
Women and men who read TehDirt: STAND with me. HOLD THE LINE AGAINST THE NIGHT.