Clare Morell

Under current judicial precedent, Section 230 has been interpreted in a way that gives blanket immunity to internet platforms, to the point that tech companies face little or no liability from even their own wrongdoing. The proper interpretation of Section 230 is thus long overdue for review by the Supreme Court—and now there is an opportunity.

To protect all publishers, but especially small ones, the United States should follow Australia, which this year began using antitrust-competition laws to unlock payments big enough to help journalism survive.

There is a critical intersection between human trafficking and illicit finance.

For all its strengths — especially its legal defensibility in court — Texas’s social-media law should be applauded and replicated. Indeed, it’s high time that other states around the nation go forth and follow.

Big Tech companies could be treated by statute as common carriers for purposes of applying antidiscrimination principles.

Tech companies enjoy the privileges of common carriers without the responsibilities. State antidiscrimination laws are one promising remedy.

Something must be done to stop Big Tech censorship, but what? Here’s how lawmakers differ when it comes to antitrust law, Section 230 reform, and common carrier law.

In an interview with National Review’s Sean-Michael Pigeon, [Clare] Morell brings up the issue of antitrust, the real harms presented by tech companies, and the possibilities (and dangers) of bipartisanship on this issue.

Fathers are essential to the flourishing of our country. Having a father in the home dramatically reduces a myriad of harms….

The unfair trade practices approach in Senator Wicker’s bill offers a creative path forward to countering Big Tech’s censorship.

Florida, in its efforts to combat Big Tech’s censorship, is doing exactly what states in our constitutional order are meant to do—experiment with new types of law.

The content moderation decisions of the dominant Big Tech conglomerates appear to many reasonable observers to be censorship of conservative speech. To remedy this problem, many have recently been looking to the common law doctrine of common carriage—particularly since Justice Clarence Thomas’s recent concurring opinion that highlighted this possible approach.