January, 26 2021, 11:00pm EDT

70+ Civil Rights and Progressive Organizations Warn Against Repealing or Making Overbroad Changes to Section 230 in Wake of Capitol Attack
Groups call on Congress to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA and hold hearings on the human rights impacts of altering Section 230.
WASHINGTON
A group of more than 70 organizations have sent a letter to Congress and the Biden/Harris administration warning against responding to the violence in the U.S. Capitol by renewing injudicious attacks on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The groups, including racial justice, LGBTQ+, Muslim, prison justice, sex worker, free expression, immigration, HIV advocacy, child protection, gender justice, digital rights, consumer, and global human rights organizations urge lawmakers to consider impacts on marginalized communities before making changes to Section 230, and call on lawmakers to take meaningful action to hold Big Tech companies accountable, including enforcement of existing anti-trust and civil rights law, and passing Federal data privacy legislation.
See the letter here: https://www.fightforthefuture.org/news/2021-01-27-letter-from-70-human-rights-and-social-justice/
"Gutting Section 230 would make it more difficult for web platforms to combat the type of dangerous rhetoric that led to the attack on the Capitol. And certain carve outs to the law could threaten human rights and silence movements for social and racial justice that are needed now more than ever," the letter's signers write, "Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights when it comes to digital speech. It makes it possible for websites and online forums to host the opinions, photos, videos, memes, and creativity of ordinary people, rather than just content that is backed by corporations."
The letter urges lawmakers to pass the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA, the last major change to Section 230, and to hold hearings on the human rights, freedom of expression, and civil liberties concerns associated with changing the law, before legislating further.
Signers of the letter include: 18 Million Rising, Access Now. Adult Industry Laborers & Artists Association, Advocating Opportunity, Assembly Four, Black and Pink, Black and Pink Massachusetts, CARES - Community AIDS Resource and Educations Services, Carolina Are - Researcher, Activist, Blogger at Blogger On Pole, Common Cause, Community United for Safety and Protection , Convocation Design and Research, COYOTE RI- Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics, Dangerous Speech Project, Data for Black Lives, Defending Rights and Dissent, Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project, Equality North Carolina, Fight for the Future, Freedom Network USA, Free Press Action, Global Forum for Media Development, Global Voices, Hacking//Hustling, Hollaback!, House of Tulip, Ishtar Collective, Indigenous Friends Organization. Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice, Institute of Information Cyprus (101.cy), International League of Advocates, Joy Buolamwini - Founder Algorithmic Justice League, Kairos Action, Lucy Parsons Labs, Media Justice, Michael Karanicolas - Yale Law School Initiative on Intermediaries and Information, Montgomery County (MD) Civil Rights Coalition, Movement Alliance Project, Mpower Change, Muslim Justice League, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Lawyers Guild, Other 98, OpenMedia, Open MIC (Open Media and Information Companies Initiative), PDX Privacy, PEN America, Popular Resistance, Positive Women's Network - Ohio, Public Knowledge, Prostasia Foundation, Presente.org, Ranking Digital Rights, Reframe Health and Justice, Renata Avila - Race & Technology Fellow, HAI, Stanford University, Sasha Costanza-Chock - Senior Research Fellow, Algorithmic Justice League, Sero Project, Sex Workers' Action Program of Hamilton, S.T.O.P. - The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, SWOP - Sex Workers Outreach Project, SWOP Behind Bars, SWOP Brooklyn, The 6:52 Project Foundation, Inc., The Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center, UltraViolet, URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, US People living with HIV Caucus, Wikimedia Foundation, Win Without War, WITNESS, Woodhull Freedom Foundation, X-Lab
Tawana Petty, National Organizing Director, Data for Black Lives, said, "Big Tech companies' surveillance minded business practices automate and exacerbate white supremacy and injustice. We need lawmakers to take meaningful action to address this, rather than continuing their misguided attacks on Section 230. Gutting this foundational law could lead to widespread silencing of marginalized voices and social movements, and make it harder for platforms to address harmful content. If Congress is serious about addressing systemic injustice in the wake of the racist attack on the U.S. Capitol, they should listen to the communities most impacted, rather than doubling down on their empty talking points."
"This is not a game. Section 230 is one of the most important laws protecting freedom of expression and human rights in the digital age," said Evan Greer (she/her), director of Fight for the Future, "Lawmakers need to listen to the communities who are most impacted by systemic injustice before they enact legislation that could do enormous harm to vulnerable communities, silence activists, and put lives in danger. Any lawmaker who pushes for changes to Section 230 without first supporting the study bill to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA is being reckless. Big Tech companies' business model is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and social justice. But we don't need headline-grabbing bills that do more harm than good. We need thoughtful policy, informed by lived experience, now more than ever."
"Unregulated tech companies have been allowed to make up their own rules for decades and as a result they've weakened democracy, enabled violent white supremacists and facilitated the spread of disinformation" said Erin Shields National Organizer with MediaJustice, "The role of platforms should rightfully be scrutinized as we assign blame for the violent attack on the Capitol. But repealing Section 230 would only further entrench tech companies as judge and jury over content on the Internet, a role they've proven ill equipped to perform without harming the speech and safety of people of color and other marginalized voices. Solutions need to be focused on breaking up tech's concentration of power, wealth, and control. Anything short of that is insufficient".
Alex Andrews of SWOP Behind Bars said, "FOSTA fallout has harmed sex workers and thier families and done nothing to reduce trafficking or improve the lives of sex trafficking victims. The shuttering of online platforms forced online sex workers into more dangerous modalities and made it impossible to survive. Because our organization advocates for the decriminalization of sex work, we could easily face prosecution for "promoting" prostitution and we can't advocate for our clients under these conditions. We beg our lawmakers to listen to our stories and understand the desperate need to provide more resources for economically disadvantaged people who have little access to services and support."
"Free Press Action is deeply concerned about white supremacist organizing, recruiting and fundraising on the internet, and has led corporate accountability campaigns launched by Change the Terms and Stop Hate for Profit to stop the spread of hate, racism and disinformation online," said Free Press Action senior policy counsel Gaurav Laroia, "We also are critical of the failure of Big Tech companies to adequately invest in content moderation to keep people often targeted with hate and disinformation - women, people of color, LGBTQIA+ people, immigrants - safe online. And while we remain open to surgical modifications to Section 230, we are concerned that repeal of Section 230 or over-broad modifications could decrease the incentives and ability for social media companies to responsibly moderate third party content on their sites. We call on Congress to enact structural legislative reforms that uproot business models that feed on hate and disinformation, such as comprehensive data privacy and digital civil rights legislation."
Ricci Levy, President and CEO of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation said, "If Congress wants to ensure online censorship on a massive scale, repealing Section 230 is an option. If instead, lawmakers hold fast to their constitutional duty to promote the right to free expression, the First Amendment of the Internet should remain as is."
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Ordering Release of More Epstein Files, Judge Says Trump DOJ 'Conceded' It Violated Transparency Law
"We're one step closer to the full release of the Epstein files and getting survivors the justice they've long deserved," said US Rep. Ro Khanna.
Jun 26, 2026
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the US Department of Justice to release more FBI files related to the investigation of late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, while finding that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche violated the law that mandated their release.
In his ruling, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan said that Blanche "conceded that he is in violation" of the 2025 Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the DOJ to release all unclassified files related to the Epstein case, as well as a log detailing justifications for redactions made to the files, by December 19, 2025.
Sullivan noted that Blanche failed to respond substantively to claims made by plaintiff Katie Phang, an attorney and former host on MSNOW who in a lawsuit accused the DOJ of improperly "redacting the names of co-defendants in a draft indictment, the names of individuals identified as 'co-conspirators.'"
Phang also alleged that Blanche improperly withheld information in the files that incriminated President Donald Trump, including "notes from FBI interviews with a victim who has alleged that in the 1980s, when she was about 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, who in turn assaulted her."
Sullivan granted Phang's request for a preliminary injunction and gave the DOJ until July 2 to release the information sought in the complaint or provide a more detailed explanation justifying its redaction.
In an analysis of the ruling, former US Attorney Joyce Vance argued that Sullivan was correct on the merits given that the information requested by Phang is "material that the [Epstein Files Transparency Act] clearly called for production of and that the government simply refused to provide, without offering reasons that justified withholding it."
Vance also remarked that "given the items the government must now provide publicly" as a result of Sullivan's ruling, "this is a highly significant development and a real win not just for Katie, but for the victims and the survivors."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who along with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) authored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, celebrated Sullivan's verdict while crediting Phang for forcing the government's hand.
"Thanks to [Phang's] tireless work, we're one step closer to the full release of the Epstein files," wrote Khanna, "and getting survivors the justice they've long deserved."
Brendan Ballou, an attorney representing Phang in the case, told Politico on Thursday that the administration's attempted coverup of the files was slowly coming apart.
"The government ignored its own law and blew off a judge’s order, all for the sake of protecting the very powerful and the very rich,” Ballou said. “Doing so had consequences, and now the public will finally get transparency around Jeffrey Epstein and his network.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Historic Victory': Mamdani Delivers on Key Campaign Promise as NYC Board Approves Rent Freeze
"We are so glad to have a partner in Mayor Mamdani who heeded our communities’ years of calls for a rent freeze and understands the needs of working families," said one organizer.
Jun 26, 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and tenant organizers celebrated a "historic victory" on Thursday after the city's Rent Guidelines Board approved a two-year rent freeze affecting roughly a million apartments—around 40% of NYC's rental housing.
The freeze, approved in a 7-1 vote, applies to tenants in rent-stabilized apartments on new one- and two-year leases beginning on or after October 1, 2026. Mamdani, whose mayoral campaign platform vowed to "immediately freeze the rent for all stabilized tenants," said in a statement that the vote provides "the relief that working people across our city deserve."
The mayor, who named six of the rent board's nine members, pledged to "continue working to deliver a more affordable city by building and preserving affordable housing, lowering building operating costs like insurance, and ensuring tenants know their rights."
"I'm grateful for the board members’ thoughtful consideration of the data, including tenants’ ability to pay, cost of living, and building operating costs," said Mamdani.
It might be hot outside but the rent is freezing. pic.twitter.com/EXPaI8emyv
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) June 26, 2026
Celebrations broke out in response to the vote, with Gothamist reporting that jubilant tenants erupted in applause and "spilled into the street" to cheer the rent freeze, which marked the first time the city board has paused rent for both one- and two-year leases.
"Hundreds of tenants packed the theater at El Museo del Barrio, singing and chanting about tenant power ahead of the board’s decision," Gothamist noted. "Many in attendance, who had helped propel Mamdani’s successful campaign for mayor, which featured a viral vow to 'freeze the rent,' held signs demanding a rent freeze. At least one attendee blew a whistle to punctuate the slogans resonating through the auditorium."
Motion passes, after a lengthy speech acknowledging landlord struggles, Wynn acknowledges a rent freeze is in landlords best interest. A zero percent increase on 1 and 2 year leases beginning Oct. 1 passes unanimously. pic.twitter.com/NwwYUlERKg
— Hannah Fierick (@HannahFNYP) June 25, 2026
Fernanda P., a Brooklyn resident and member of the advocacy group Make the Road New York, said in a statement late Thursday that "our communities have spent years organizing and advocating for a rent freeze, and today our efforts have finally paid off."
"This rent freeze is a relief for the thousands of New Yorkers, like myself, who are struggling every day to pay for increasingly unaffordable housing," said Fernanda. "We are so glad to have a partner in Mayor Mamdani who heeded our communities’ years of calls for a rent freeze and understands the needs of working families. We will continue our fight for a New York that is affordable for everybody.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Intend to Win': California Billionaire Tax Officially Certified for November Ballot
"The fact that the ultra-wealthy and billionaire-backed politicians like Gov. Newsom nearly succeeded in killing it is the single best argument for why we need to tax billionaires in the first place."
Jun 26, 2026
Organizers said late Thursday that a proposed one-time wealth tax on California billionaires has been certified to appear on state ballots in November, advancing despite efforts by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and billionaire-funded groups to tank the measure ahead of the June 25 deadline.
"Today we’re making it clear that we aren’t backing down–the billionaire tax will be on the ballot this November, and we intend to win,” said Debru Carthan, a radiologic technologist and spokesperson for Billionaire Tax Now, the healthcare union-led coalition leading the ballot initiative.
If approved by California voters, the proposal would tax billionaires' wealth at a rate of 5%, raising an estimated $100 billion to shore up the state's healthcare system amid devastating federal cuts to Medicaid. Revenue from the tax would also be used for food aid and education, according to the initiative's text.
Last week, organizers offered to withdraw their proposal if Newsom agreed to push a 2% tax on billionaire wealth in California's Legislature. Newsom, who is widely seen as a 2028 presidential hopeful, rejected the compromise and privately told a major Democratic donor that he was confident the billionaire tax would not appear on California's ballot in November.
Organizers emphasized Thursday that despite Newsom's opposition and fearmongering from billionaires and other opponents, the proposed tax is popular among California voters, who are facing an affordability crisis as the wealthiest see their fortunes soar. From 2023 to 2025, the wealth of California billionaires surged by 144%, according to a recent paper co-authored by leading economists.
"Voters consistently support the billionaire tax by large, double-digit margins, and the growing campaign has brought on thousands of volunteers," organizers said in a statement. "Supporters of the measure submitted over 1.6 million signatures, more than double the number needed to secure a spot on the general election ballot."
To succeed, proponents of the billionaire tax must secure enough votes to pass their initiative while also defeating separate ballot measures that would effectively cancel out the wealth levy. One of the competing initiatives was pushed by a group bankrolled by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to defeat the billionaire tax and who left California in late 2025 to avoid the potential levy.
The competing ballot measures—the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026 and the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act of 2026—are titled in ways that could lead some voters to support both the wealth tax and proposals that would counteract it.
Igor Volsky, director of the Tax the Greedy Billionaires campaign, said in a statement that "when billionaires can erase democratic initiatives that threaten their fortunes, they have too much power."
"The fact that the ultra-wealthy and billionaire-backed politicians like Gov. Newsom nearly succeeded in killing it is the single best argument for why we need to tax billionaires in the first place," Volsky added.
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a vocal supporter of the proposed billionaire wealth tax, said Thursday that "this issue couldn’t be more simple."
"There are 250 billionaires in a state of 40 million people," said Khanna. "What we’re saying is, tax these 250 billionaires so that millions of Californians can have healthcare."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


