Walden Wants to Revisit Section 230 Protections in Net Neutrality Debate, Criticizes Democrats' Bill
House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., said Thursday he's disappointed that committee Democrats are interested in pursuing only their own net neutrality bill, the Save the Internet Act, but he's also looking at future options. House Communications Subcommittee…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., said Friday he filed the House version of the bill with 132 co-sponsors, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J. That bill and Senate companion S-682 would add a new title to the Communications Act that says the FCC's rescission order “shall have no force or effect" (see 1903060077). The bill would retroactively restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service and would bar the FCC from reissuing a rescission order. A Tuesday House Communications Subcommittee hearing is expected to focus on only the Democrats' bill and not discuss a trio of GOP-led measures that avoid using Title II (see 1902070056 and 1903050042). Democrats have been unenthusiastic about the GOP legislation (see 1902220001). The Save the Internet Act is "not something the White House is going to be signing, and I doubt the Senate will pass it," Walden told reporters. "Hopefully we can find" a path forward. Walden said he believes lawmakers should use work on net neutrality as a way of re-examining online platforms’ content liability protections under Communications Decency Act Section 230 because edge providers' argument they need the statute makes them sound like common carriers. "It may be time to take a look at" changing aspects of that statute, because it "seems kind of peculiar to argue on the one hand you get Section 230 protection because you're a common carrier but on the other hand call for net neutrality legislation" that governs "everybody but yourself," he said. "We've had hearings on shadow banning, we've had hearings on the algorithms and there's not a real clear picture here" about "how some of these platforms operate." Net neutrality and Section 230 "are distinct policies that both give consumers more access to ideas and content online,” an Internet Association spokesperson said. "Net neutrality means consumers, not ISPs, get to decide where they go online," while Section 230 "allows online platforms to host -- and to moderate -- user generated content online."