Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Steve3007 »

In the US, there is a piece of legislation called the Communications Decency Act whose intent was to regulate pornographic material on the internet (dating from the mid 90's when the internet was generally regarded as just a place where nerds could look at pornography slightly more conveniently than previously.) A section was added which protects online service providers from legal actions against them as a result of content provided by third parties. That section is occasionally in the news now because Trump keeps calling for it to be repealed (hence the capitalisation in the title) due to Twitter and Facebook censuring him for some of the more extreme examples of inaccurate things that he's posted on those platforms.

Should it be repealed? Is it possible to draw a reasonably objective line between a provider of interactive computer services (passive) and a publisher of news (active)?
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Arjen »

If it is repealed, what should come in it's place?
Without such a law, propaganda would have an easier time, or all kinds of horrific stuff.

What should replace it?
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Arjen wrote: October 19th, 2020, 5:03 pm If it is repealed, what should come in it's place?
Without such a law, propaganda would have an easier time, or all kinds of horrific stuff.

What should replace it?
A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Terrapin Station »

I don't agree with the idea of a "Communications Decency Act" in general, but Section 230 is a good thing. The idea expressed in Section 230 should be codified independently.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Sy Borg »

Arjen wrote: October 19th, 2020, 5:03 pm If it is repealed, what should come in it's place?
Without such a law, propaganda would have an easier time, or all kinds of horrific stuff.

What should replace it?
The decree of King Donald I?

Seriously, there is a broader fault line that comes from private companies becoming so huge and powerful that they end up taking on governance roles once reserved to the executive arm. A small example would be how the supermarket duopoly in Australia regulated toilet roll purchases.
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Arjen »

Before I start with soecific comment, please consider this:

Due to censorship and meddling by foreign nations into the free world's elections and news, now the free world is effectively making rules to cebsor it's own media. That leaves the way free to manipulate the censors and spread propaganda, while censoring truth by mistake of the censors (benefit of the doubt here). Is tbis the right direction to go?
Greta wrote: October 19th, 2020, 7:35 pm The decree of King Donald I?

Seriously, there is a broader fault line that comes from private companies becoming so huge and powerful that they end up taking on governance roles once reserved to the executive arm. A small example would be how the supermarket duopoly in Australia regulated toilet roll purchases.
That is exactly what Donald Trump thinks. And, given the fact that the facts about the Biden's China (and Ukraine) collusion are being suppressed, something should change. Even the press secretary of the White House was blocked! It is censorship by a company. Which is exactly what the CCP is looking for I might add.

You all know my feelings about the CCP. This is why. It is an incredible danger to the freedoms of all the people of the world. What do you propose?
Terrapin Station wrote: October 19th, 2020, 7:31 pm I don't agree with the idea of a "Communications Decency Act" in general, but Section 230 is a good thing. The idea expressed in Section 230 should be codified independently.
Any specific idea on that?
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 19th, 2020, 7:00 pm A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
I like your idea in the sense that a member of the public can still spew general discontent. And in the sense that news would be fact checked. However, do you remember our discussions about BLM and such? I said it was communist ideology under the guise of anti racism long before I could prove it. Likely, it would have been censored. Or this moment with Biden's laptop, which is now censored after someone lied and pretended it was the Russians. The DNI came forward and stated there is nu Russia meddling here, nor is there reason to think so, nor is or was there an investigation into Russia. How to orebent gross mistakes like this?
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by LuckyR »

In a perfect world consumers of content could figure out what is fake. Obviously we live in a very imperfect world where many turn off their critical mind if the subject matter is to their liking. Thus I see no problem if a service provider wants to regulate what is broadcast on their bandwidth.
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Steve3007 »

Just to be clear on this: The issue is where the line is drawn, in the social media age, between a passive facilitator of other people's communications and an active creator of content, such as a newspaper. At the ends of this spectrum: The law generally holds the publishers of newspapers to be at least partly responsible for the legality and accuracy of their content. It does not do the same with the telephone company. i.e. if someone uses a phone to tell other people lies, or plot terrorist acts with them, or whatever, the phone company isn't held to be responsible for that. And, of course, the phone company doesn't chip in with a warning if you say something untrue during a phone call. Section 230 effectively treats internet based service providers such as Twitter a bit like the phone company.

Trump's point (or perhaps more accurately, the point of the team who were tasked with retroactively finding a justification for his outrage at being censured) is that if the likes of Twitter are going to filter the content placed on their site for accuracy, as a conventional newspaper does (or at least claims/aspires to do) with its journalism, then they should be treated like a newspaper when it comes to being responsible for that content too. It's a consistency argument. In other words: "If I say something inaccurate or harmful on your platform its your fault for not controlling me.".
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Steve3007 »

Arjen wrote:If it is repealed, what should come in it's place?
Without such a law, propaganda would have an easier time, or all kinds of horrific stuff.
The law means that the platform is not held responsible for the content posted on it. Without the law the platform would presumably be more inclined to censure or censor than they currently are, for fear of being prosecuted. If I were them I'd be inclined to metaphorically write "may contain nuts" on everything, just to cover myself, like the food manufacturers do.
Marvin_Edwards wrote:A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
How would you appoint a bi-partisan moderator group and what means would you use to assess their bi-partisanship? Would you make it a legal requirement for platforms like Twitter to appoint a group like this? If you did, at what point in the development of a social media platform would this legal requirement be triggered? If I start developing a social media platform today, do I first need to appoint this group?
Terrapin Station wrote:I don't agree with the idea of a "Communications Decency Act" in general, but Section 230 is a good thing. The idea expressed in Section 230 should be codified independently.
This is consistent with your belief in the strongest possible form of free speech.
Greta wrote:The decree of King Donald I?

Seriously, there is a broader fault line that comes from private companies becoming so huge and powerful that they end up taking on governance roles once reserved to the executive arm. A small example would be how the supermarket duopoly in Australia regulated toilet roll purchases.
Yes, the broader problem is the general one of private companies growing to have size, power and structure which is comparable to that of nation states. I'm intrigued about the Australian toilet paper regulation example. I'll look into that one! At the start of the pandemic there was panic buying and shortages of toilet paper here too. There was some half-serious-half-humourous discussion on news programmes about the possible psychology of that. (Everyone loves a toilet story.)
LuckyR wrote:In a perfect world consumers of content could figure out what is fake. Obviously we live in a very imperfect world where many turn off their critical mind if the subject matter is to their liking. Thus I see no problem if a service provider wants to regulate what is broadcast on their bandwidth.
Fair enough. But if there is no problem regulating the content, should they also be held responsible for it by the repeal of section 230? That seems to be what's at issue. Or, as private companies (or as companies owned by shareholders), are they free to do absolutely anything they like with the content people use them to broadcast, even if they've grown to a size which makes them an institution? As an extreme example to illustrate the point, should Twitter be allowed to completely change the content of a tweet by a prominent public figure like Trump or Biden?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Steve3007 »

Arjen wrote:I like your idea in the sense that a member of the public can still spew general discontent. And in the sense that news would be fact checked. However, do you remember our discussions about BLM and such? I said it was communist ideology under the guise of anti racism long before I could prove it. Likely, it would have been censored. Or this moment with Biden's laptop, which is now censored after someone lied and pretended it was the Russians. The DNI came forward and stated there is nu Russia meddling here, nor is there reason to think so, nor is or was there an investigation into Russia. How to orebent gross mistakes like this?
Leaving aside the accuracy or otherwise of your specific claims on specific issues I think the general point you make here is a good one. If there is to be such a thing as fact checking, at what point does the fact checking occur? As you've said, some claims might initially be unsupported by evidence but evidence might be presented, or come to light, later. Too late if the initial claim never got beyond a censor. I think a complete free speech advocate like Terrapin Station would say that all of this should be left to the free market of ideas. This presumably means that everyone, including the platforms themselves, like Twitter, are players in that market and are free to say what they like, free to broadcast the words of others and free to decline to do so for any reason that they choose, and the market will judge them accordingly. So in a completely free market for speech all censorship, other than that carried out by government, is permissible, so long as it doesn't involve physical restraint against the speaker's will.

In a completely free market for speech, if I owned Twitter I'd be within my rights to, for example, ban Donald Trump or Joe Biden without stating any reason, or change their words in order to claim that they've said something that they haven't, or anything else as long as it doesn't involve physically harming/restraining them against their will.
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Arjen »

I have found the paragraph that this is all about. I will place it here so we can comment on it. My own comments will be in another post.
Section 230 wrote: 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(a)FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1)The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.

(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5)No effect on sex trafficking law Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f)DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4)Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Arjen wrote: October 20th, 2020, 1:37 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 19th, 2020, 7:00 pm A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
I like your idea in the sense that a member of the public can still spew general discontent. And in the sense that news would be fact checked. However, do you remember our discussions about BLM and such? I said it was communist ideology under the guise of anti racism long before I could prove it. Likely, it would have been censored. Or this moment with Biden's laptop, which is now censored after someone lied and pretended it was the Russians. The DNI came forward and stated there is nu Russia meddling here, nor is there reason to think so, nor is or was there an investigation into Russia. How to orebent gross mistakes like this?
It would depend upon the nature of the claim. Here are some more ideas:

1. Every person is entitled to express their opinion.
2. But a person is should not be entitled to intentionally spread misinformation.

3. Any statement that goes under the guise of "information" should be fact-checked before it is published.

4. Every organization that deliberately spreads false information under the guise of information should be liable to be sued for libel or slander.

5. School children should be taught Social Studies that covers examples of exaggeration, false information, propaganda, and rumors to prepare them to detect these manipulative practices when used by politicians and news media. Hopefully this will offer them some immunity to disinformation.

Oh, and of course, BLM is not a communist ideology. I assume you are speaking out of your ass. (And I did have a social studies class that dealt with marketing ploys and how not to be deceived by advertising).
User avatar
Arjen
Posts: 467
Joined: January 16th, 2019, 4:53 am
Favorite Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Arjen »

Steve3007 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 5:15 am Leaving aside the accuracy or otherwise of your specific claims on specific issues I think the general point you make here is a good one. If there is to be such a thing as fact checking, at what point does the fact checking occur? As you've said, some claims might initially be unsupported by evidence but evidence might be presented, or come to light, later. Too late if the initial claim never got beyond a censor. I think a complete free speech advocate like Terrapin Station would say that all of this should be left to the free market of ideas. This presumably means that everyone, including the platforms themselves, like Twitter, are players in that market and are free to say what they like, free to broadcast the words of others and free to decline to do so for any reason that they choose, and the market will judge them accordingly. So in a completely free market for speech all censorship, other than that carried out by government, is permissible, so long as it doesn't involve physical restraint against the speaker's will.

In a completely free market for speech, if I owned Twitter I'd be within my rights to, for example, ban Donald Trump or Joe Biden without stating any reason, or change their words in order to claim that they've said something that they haven't, or anything else as long as it doesn't involve physically harming/restraining them against their will.
The whole question is: should it be left to corporations to decide what to censor when it comes to newspaper or, god forbid, press secretaries of the White house?!
I say no. Perhaps section 230 should be amended to allow for "official sources" and let the free market punish the sources that were wrong?
LuckyR wrote: October 20th, 2020, 3:02 am In a perfect world consumers of content could figure out what is fake. Obviously we live in a very imperfect world where many turn off their critical mind if the subject matter is to their liking. Thus I see no problem if a service provider wants to regulate what is broadcast on their bandwidth.

A voice for extreme right(s) of the corporations. What if that means that a corrupt politician gets into office? Which COULD have been prevented, if only the people knew? Or, to silence the government if the government means to alert the population with concerns about such a company? For example by terminating the official account of the press secretary of the White House?
Marvin_Edwards wrote: October 20th, 2020, 7:00 am It would depend upon the nature of the claim. Here are some more ideas:

1. Every person is entitled to express their opinion.
2. But a person is should not be entitled to intentionally spread misinformation.

3. Any statement that goes under the guise of "information" should be fact-checked before it is published.

4. Every organization that deliberately spreads false information under the guise of information should be liable to be sued for libel or slander.

5. School children should be taught Social Studies that covers examples of exaggeration, false information, propaganda, and rumors to prepare them to detect these manipulative practices when used by politicians and news media. Hopefully this will offer them some immunity to disinformation.

Oh, and of course, BLM is not a communist ideology. I assume you are speaking out of your ass. (And I did have a social studies class that dealt with marketing ploys and how not to be deceived by advertising).
BLM is. I am in the process of gather more information. I am thinking to include Qanon in the same topic, or not :)

I like your 5 points.
I think
2) should fall under normal freedom of speech and that people shold be kindly made awae of waht sland is before actually being punished in normal cases.
3) As Steve mentioned above: When is the fact checking done? Should things be allowed until proven false? Should I be able to writ speculatively? My experience is that, knowing what Kant wrote still, it was still extremely hard to write a fact checked wikipedia article about him. Finding a literal quote is tough! But, anyone that actually ever checked into his work would have confirmed me. I mean: this is a thing that might limit the spread of information. I am not sure how to do that right. Can we come up with ideas?

1, 4 and 5 are spot on in my opinion :)
The saying that what is true in theory is not always true in practice, means that the theory is wrong!
~Immanuel Kant
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Steve3007 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote:5. School children should be taught Social Studies that covers examples of exaggeration, false information, propaganda, and rumors to prepare them to detect these manipulative practices when used by politicians and news media. Hopefully this will offer them some immunity to disinformation.
I think this is a good idea. Although it will always be vulnerable to accusations of partisan political bias.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Section 230 - REPEAL IT?

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Steve3007 wrote: October 20th, 2020, 4:59 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote:A rating system based on fact-checking. Prior to posting, a bi-partisan moderator group would classify the content as "personal opinion", "false rumor", "fake news" and any other categories that would give the reader a heads-up that what they are reading is non-factual.
How would you appoint a bi-partisan moderator group and what means would you use to assess their bi-partisanship? Would you make it a legal requirement for platforms like Twitter to appoint a group like this? If you did, at what point in the development of a social media platform would this legal requirement be triggered? If I start developing a social media platform today, do I first need to appoint this group?
Back in the old days, the news departments at ABC, CBS, and NBC policed each other. Any false news reporting was quickly seized upon and became a news story itself. Their competition with each other was based in part upon the quality of their product, which was information. Some newsmen resigned after reporting an unsubstantiated story.

But, things have changed, haven't they.

No intelligent human being should be giving any credence to stories spread by individuals on social media.

And, when Trump or anyone else says, "Some people say that...", we should all presume that this flags a false rumor that they are deliberately spreading.

School systems should prepare our kids to identify rumors so that they are not the victims of false information.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021