Chapter 1 explores the issue of when and whether Big Tech stops being a private actor and become a “state actor” under the entanglement-entwinement theory such that the U.S. Constitution applies to its conduct, whether social media platforms are common law “common carriers,” and the state regulatory approach for “quasi” state actors. Chapter 2 explores the nondelegation doctrine using James Madison’s view of the republic, dyadic representation, and separation of powers to analyze the Supreme Courts’ current “intelligible principle” standard, using Justice Gursuch’s dissent in the Gundy v. U.S. case to propose a new four-part measuring stick to assess improper legislative delegation to the executive branch. Chapter 3 explores the idea of a Congressional response to Section 230 with a proposed new “must carry” statute for large social media platforms that bans all content moderation, uses federal preemption to occupy the regulatory field, levels the competitive playing field for social media, and otherwise leaves the existing Section 230 scheme with “light touch” regulation intact for all other interactive internet services.
","abstract_html":"<p>Chapter 1 explores the issue of when and whether Big Tech stops being a private actor and become a “state actor” under the entanglement-entwinement theory such that the U.S. Constitution applies to its conduct, whether social media platforms are common law “common carriers,” and the state regulatory approach for “quasi” state actors. Chapter 2 explores the nondelegation doctrine using James Madison’s view of the republic, dyadic representation, and separation of powers to analyze the Supreme Courts’ current “intelligible principle” standard, using Justice Gursuch’s dissent in the Gundy v. U.S. case to propose a new four-part measuring stick to assess improper legislative delegation to the executive branch. Chapter 3 explores the idea of a Congressional response to Section 230 with a proposed new “must carry” statute for large social media platforms that bans all content moderation, uses federal preemption to occupy the regulatory field, levels the competitive playing field for social media, and otherwise leaves the existing Section 230 scheme with “light touch” regulation intact for all other interactive internet services.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Honnen-Weisdorn, Gia Luisa"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Political Science, PhD","degree_level":"Restricted to Claremont Colleges Dissertation","degree_discipline":"School of Social Science, Politics, and Evaluation","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Tyler Reny","Carlos Algara","Linnea McCord"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2023,"date_issued":"2023-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2023-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:40:22Z","subjects":["Constitutional law","First Amendment","Free Speech","Nondelegation doctrine","Separation of powers","Social Media","Intellectual Property Law","Law","Political Science"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/591","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Tyler Reny","Carlos Algara","Linnea McCord"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Honnen-Weisdorn, Gia Luisa"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2025-10-02T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["School of Social Science, Politics, and Evaluation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Restricted to Claremont Colleges Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Political Science, PhD"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Constitutional law","First Amendment","Free Speech","Nondelegation doctrine","Separation of powers","Social Media","Intellectual Property Law","Law","Political Science"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/591"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Chapter 1 explores the issue of when and whether Big Tech stops being a private actor and become a “state actor” under the entanglement-entwinement theory such that the U.S. Constitution applies to its conduct, whether social media platforms are common law “common carriers,” and the state regulatory approach for “quasi” state actors. Chapter 2 explores the nondelegation doctrine using James Madison’s view of the republic, dyadic representation, and separation of powers to analyze the Supreme Courts’ current “intelligible principle” standard, using Justice Gursuch’s dissent in the Gundy v. U.S. case to propose a new four-part measuring stick to assess improper legislative delegation to the executive branch. Chapter 3 explores the idea of a Congressional response to Section 230 with a proposed new “must carry” statute for large social media platforms that bans all content moderation, uses federal preemption to occupy the regulatory field, levels the competitive playing field for social media, and otherwise leaves the existing Section 230 scheme with “light touch” regulation intact for all other interactive internet services.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Summary of Essays on the Constitutional Application of the 1996 CDA Section 230 and Separation of Powers"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Tyler Reny","Carlos Algara","Linnea McCord"],"dc:creator":["Honnen-Weisdorn, Gia Luisa"],"dc:date.available":["2025-10-02T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["Chapter 1 explores the issue of when and whether Big Tech stops being a private actor and become a “state actor” under the entanglement-entwinement theory such that the U.S. Constitution applies to its conduct, whether social media platforms are common law “common carriers,” and the state regulatory approach for “quasi” state actors. Chapter 2 explores the nondelegation doctrine using James Madison’s view of the republic, dyadic representation, and separation of powers to analyze the Supreme Courts’ current “intelligible principle” standard, using Justice Gursuch’s dissent in the Gundy v. U.S. case to propose a new four-part measuring stick to assess improper legislative delegation to the executive branch. Chapter 3 explores the idea of a Congressional response to Section 230 with a proposed new “must carry” statute for large social media platforms that bans all content moderation, uses federal preemption to occupy the regulatory field, levels the competitive playing field for social media, and otherwise leaves the existing Section 230 scheme with “light touch” regulation intact for all other interactive internet services.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/591"],"dc:subject":["Constitutional law","First Amendment","Free Speech","Nondelegation doctrine","Separation of powers","Social Media","Intellectual Property Law","Law","Political Science"],"dc:title":["Summary of Essays on the Constitutional Application of the 1996 CDA Section 230 and Separation of Powers"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["School of Social Science, Politics, and Evaluation"],"thesis:degree_level":["Restricted to Claremont Colleges Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Political Science, PhD"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:40:22Z"}