Durbin and Graham Meet on Prospects for Repealing Section 230
Communications Decency Act Section 230 has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed, Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told us this week.
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 top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said they met Wednesday morning and discussed legislation.
“I’ve spoken to Lindsey, and we are on common ground on that,” Durbin told us Wednesday. “It’s about time for a change ... 230 has outlived its usefulness and is perpetuating some terrible practices.” Asked if they're moving forward with a specific legislative proposal, he said: “We’re going to take this a step at a time.”
“Stay tuned,” Graham said Wednesday. “Full-court press coming.” On Tuesday evening, Graham told us he likes the approach of sunsetting the tech industry’s liability shield: “It gives us a chance to find a substitute.”
Their meeting comes days after the House Commerce Committee released a bipartisan draft discussion seeking sunset of Section 230 in 2025 (see 2405130060).
House Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., and ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., echoed Graham’s remarks when announcing their draft bill, saying the 18-month deadline gives Congress a chance to pass an alternative framework. Graham said Tuesday, “That’s good. I want to join forces with those guys.”
Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told us Tuesday that the House Commerce proposal “sounds very broad, probably too broad.” She noted Congress made positive changes to Section 230 when it approved anti-sex trafficking legislation in 2018 (see 2007070060) and more incremental changes are needed.
A full-on repeal “would be a mistake,” Senate Commerce Committee ranking member Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told us Tuesday. “It is far better to use Section 230 as a lever to stop Big Tech censorship,” he said, arguing a repeal could result in “even more censorship.”
Eliminating Section 230 will result in silencing internet users who don’t carry political clout, said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who wrote the 1996 statute. Wyden has argued that a repeal will create immense pressure for platforms to remove content that offends powerful users, who have a lot of influence.
It’s time for Congress to have an official Section 230 debate, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner, D-Va., said Tuesday. The recent passage of TikTok-targeted legislation (see 2404240060) suggests Congress’ “zero batting average” on tech legislation is “starting to change,” he said.
Rodgers and Pallone signing onto the measure “shows where opinion is going on Section 230,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said. “I’m in favor of repealing it. So good for them.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., noted he has discussed with Graham repealing the statute for months. Section 230 was “never a great idea, but it has for sure outlived its usefulness,” Hawley said.