Pallone, Walden Ask Lighthizer to Exclude Section 230 From Trade Deals
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer shouldn’t include Section 230-like protections in trade deals, given ongoing policy discussions about the tech industry's liability shield, House Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., wrote Tuesday.
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.
The same day, the father of a 24-year-old reporter assassinated on live TV in 2015 urged Congress to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Andy Parker told the National Press Club he’s talking to offices for Sens. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii; Mark Warner, D-Va.; and Tim Kaine, D-Va., about a bill. Parker wants platforms to be liable for hosting content featuring targeted harassment, hate speech and death.
At the urging of Hirono’s office, YouTube removed content on Alison Parker’s murder, Parker said. Hirono aide Jeff Hanston said during the event that her office doesn’t believe that’s the right approach for content moderation, and it’s working to make sure Google takes more ownership. Hirono's talking with Warner and Kaine to see where the issue goes, Hanston said. Parker plans to “roam the halls” of Congress until “Alison’s Law” becomes part of the congressional debate and is passed.
Parker envisions a bill similar to a law amending Section 230 and designed to limit human sex trafficking (see 1805020053). Lawmakers like Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, floated Section 230-related legislation that would address claims of Silicon Valley’s alleged anti-GOP bias. Parker wants a bill that narrowly targets harassment-related and obscene material. “Google is monetizing death,” he said. “That’s what bothers me most.”
A Google spokesperson noted the company’s investment in policies, resources and products for protecting YouTube users from harmful content. In the first quarter this year, YouTube removed 8.3 million videos violating community guidelines, with 76 percent of company-flagged content removed without any views.
Congress is increasingly debating Section 230 and the “appropriate role” of the liability shield, Pallone and Walden wrote Lighthizer. Without offering a firm position, they said it would be inappropriate to export Section 230 language while policy discussions are ongoing. They asked Lighthizer to consult the committee before any negotiations on the issue.
Parker said he has been pleading with Google to address the issue for years. Rather than self-police, the company told him to flag content about his daughter’s death, he said: “They wanted me to watch my daughter’s murder and tell a robot to take it down.” He said individuals and congressional officers shouldn’t have to “coerce” Google to police its own content, he said. Because of Section 230’s blanket immunity, there’s no incentive to solve the issue, Parker said.
Section 230 encourages platforms to remove harmful content, and the amount of such content would increase with its elimination, said NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo: “Platforms like Google rely on Section 230 so that they can work hard to take down content that violates their community standards, by using algorithms and reviewers. It's not true to say that the major online platforms put the responsibility of content moderation on users.”