Roger Koopman: Rand Paul's bill targeting internet liars is good government
Paul’s proposal would remove internet providers’ special liability protection for defamatory content, a change the columnist supports.

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe Bozeman Daily Chronicle is a local newspaper, a source type generally associated with established editorial practices. This is a clearly attributed guest column, so its advocacy should not be mistaken for the paper’s independent reporting.
- Source type — Local newspaper; a generally credible source type for regional coverage.
- Author attribution — The piece is explicitly identified as a guest column by Roger Koopman.
- Editorial standards — The page provides no specific information about corrections or editorial policies.
The column makes a clear case for the proposal but relies mainly on the author's assertions and analogies, without cited evidence, legal analysis or a substantive opposing view.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The column advocates for Paul's proposal throughout and does not meaningfully present the case for retaining provider protections or assess possible consequences of repeal.
- Counterarguments presented — It briefly acknowledges free-expression rights but does not develop arguments against the proposal.
- Loaded language — Uses charged descriptions of online content and providers' conduct.
- Opinion vs reporting — Clearly an opinion column making a case for the proposal.
- Source diversity — No additional sources or perspectives are included.
The column strongly endorses Paul's proposal and portrays internet providers' current protections as enabling politically biased content moderation and reputational harm. Its framing favors the proposal rather than presenting a neutral account.
- Language tone — Uses emphatic and condemnatory language about defamatory online content and provider conduct.
- Framing — Presents Paul's proposal as accountability and good government, with little examination of potential costs.
- Source selection — The argument is entirely the guest columnist's; no opposing view is included.
Guest columnist Roger Koopman argues that Rand Paul’s proposal to remove internet providers’ special liability protection for defamatory content is good government. He says providers should be accountable when they leave damaging false claims online.
Koopman argues that internet providers should be held accountable when they host defamatory claims and refuse to remove them. He compares this to print media publishing a libelous letter and says the protection providers receive under Section 230 enables reputational harm. He also acknowledges that freedom of expression protects offensive speech, but distinguishes that speech from what he calls calculated defamatory lies.
Koopman endorses Paul’s proposal to repeal internet providers’ special liability protection, describing it as consistent with good government, the Constitution and liberty. The column does not present arguments from supporters of retaining the protection.
Community verdict
VOTING CLOSEDNo good or bad look here
This story reports what happened without casting Paul in a good or bad light, so readers don’t rate it and it doesn’t count toward Paul’s record.
People in this story
Senator whose proposal to repeal internet providers' special liability protection is endorsed by the columnist
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…
