Sen. Hawley Drops Section 230 Bill, Drawing Speech Concerns From Key Republicans

The Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act would apply to companies with at least 30 million active monthly U.S. users, at least 300 million global monthly users or more than $500 million in global annual revenue. Large tech companies would be forced, through audits, to give the FTC clear and convincing evidence their algorithms and content-removal practices are "politically neutral.” The agency would certify companies every two years for immunity through a supermajority vote, and the companies would cover the costs of the audits. There’s growing evidence big tech companies are “making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”

In separate interviews, Collins and Walden, who weren't up to speed on bill specifics, asked who would determine evidence of bias. “He wants a governmental board to determine political bias?" Collins asked. "I haven’t read his bill, [but] that would tend to be concerning.” Walden equated the measure to the fairness doctrine, a defunct policy that required broadcasters to present balanced views on public interest issues. “As an old broadcaster, I was never in favor of the fairness doctrine. I never wanted the government deciding speech. I don’t know how you make that work” with First Amendment principles, Walden said.

There needs to be oversight to ensure bias doesn’t influence platform algorithms, but the FTC might not be the best entity, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told us. “I don’t want to destroy the industry,” he said. “If you’re liable for everything anybody says or does on these networks, you probably won’t stay in business very long.” But Congress needs to address the consolidation of “an enormous amount of power in the hands of people without a whole lot of accountability,” he said.

A bill like Hawley’s “would get my attention, but I’m not sure I want to say right now that that’s the answer,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. He agreed there’s a “major problem” that needs to be addressed to ensure fairness for content on platforms. Like Collins and Walden, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., raised constitutional issues, citing “political content speech on the internet.”

This legislation would give tech companies an impossible choice, said Internet Association CEO Michael Beckerman: “either host reprehensible, but First Amendment protected speech, or lose legal protections that allow them to moderate illegal content like human trafficking and violent extremism. That shouldn’t be a tradeoff.” Restricting the legal protection that enables platforms to police content would allow more hate speech and illegal material, said Computer & Communications Industry Association CEO Ed Black. “This is an unbelievable disregard for the essence of the First Amendment and attempt to overlay a lens of partisan politics over the communications of millions of Americans.”

Americans for Prosperity Policy Analyst Billy Easley took issue with “stricter government control” over free expression: “Eroding the crucial protections that exist under Section 230 creates a scenario where government has the ability to police your speech and determine what you can or cannot say online.”