In no way is "Impeding the transfer of fiat" or "Impeding speech" by a business "a violation of constitutional rights." Like, just to put this in a less content

In no way is "Impeding the transfer of fiat" or "Impeding speech" by a business "a violation of constitutional rights." Like, just to put this in a less contentious context - think about an employer. An employer is allowed to stop an employee from speaking about things, or can punish or fire them for their speech. There isn't some inalienable right to speech. There is a constitutional right to the government not being able to forbid speech as a general rule. But that has no affect legally on a company denying service to someone they disagree with. Just to make sure I've covered all my bases here: If this was about denying services to a protected class, then you'd have a different response for a different reason -- businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of a protected class. But political beliefs are not a protected class. As for changing Section 230. The Senate could certainly do all sorts of things to change the way this works. It's clearly an interstate commerce issue, so the federal government could pass all sorts of laws. I don't have an opinion one way or another about how they'd do it, since that's more policy than law. -JD's opinion.