It’s vital to continue holding online content creators responsible for their work and shielding websites from liability for that content, said more than 75 academics, experts and civil society organizations Thursday. They warned Congress against altering Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (see 1907090062) and potential harms to free speech and exchange of ideas. The group cited seven principles for guiding Section 230 amendments. Americans for Prosperity, the Center for Democracy & Technology, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, New America's Open Technology Institute, R Street Institute and TechFreedom were among those signing. Content creators bear primary responsibility for their speech and actions, and hosts shouldn’t be forced to remove constitutionally protected speech, the group argued. Content moderation shouldn’t be discouraged, and Section 230 doesn’t and shouldn’t require political neutrality, it argued.
President Donald Trump offered anecdotal evidence of social media bias and alleged throttling of his followers and activity on Twitter. Speaking Thursday to hundreds of invitees at his Presidential Social Media Summit (see 1907100040), he cited dramatic fluctuations of follower counts and Twitter interaction. “It would be like a rocket ship when I put out a beauty,” he said, claiming nowadays it takes him 10 times as long to gain 100,000 followers.
Tech companies should be required to follow industry-written best business practices for protecting children’s online safety to “earn” Section 230 liability protections, said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. That portion of the Communications Decency Act gives websites immunity from liability for the third-party content they host. Congress has chipped away at that immunity, including with anti-sex trafficking legislation passed in 2018 (see 1806290044).
Government should verify whether platforms are moderating content fairly, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said Thursday in defense of a bill that would dramatically alter the tech industry’s Section 230 immunity (see 1906190047). “Government’s not policing speech [under the new bill],” he told reporters in response to comments from Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. “These companies themselves aren’t speaking. They are moderating others’ content, so they are moderating others’ speech.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation to remove Section 230 immunity for big tech companies unless they prove to the FTC every two years that content removal decisions are politically neutral. The bill drew concern from House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., and House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore. They warned against government regulation of speech.
As Congress mulls new regulatory approaches to major tech companies, it might want to look at creating an exemption to Communications Decency Act Section 230 to hold service providers liable for publishing or restricting certain kinds of content, the Congressional Research Service reported. Minus an express exemption, there could be legal questions about new laws imposing liability that might conflict with Section 230 general immunity, CRS said Monday. It said such rules might also have First Amendment issues. It said any move to a comprehensive federal data protection law might need to weigh whether to be prescriptive or outcome-based, the definition of protected information and the role of the FTC or another federal enforcement agency. It said reclassification of ISPs as common carriers could create legal uncertainty about data protection obligations since they no longer would be under FTC jurisdiction. It said antitrust action against such tech companies also would raise complicated legal questions such as market definitions for dynamic technology industries. Since many tech companies provide services for free, demonstrating a monopoly could be difficult, CRS said.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wants to avoid altering Communications Decency Act Section 230, he told us. Several key lawmakers are discussing the possibility of amending tech industry immunity from third-party content liability.
Amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to hold tech companies more accountable for false and harmful content is worth “serious consideration,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told reporters Thursday. “If social media companies can’t exercise a proper standard of care when it comes to a whole variety of fraudulent or illicit content, then we have to think about whether that immunity still makes sense.”
Congress has a constitutional duty to ensure antitrust law is working properly within the digital economy, said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and House Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline, D-R.I., during a hearing Tuesday (see 1906100029). It was the first in a series of tech competition investigation hearings, which ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., said he “firmly” supports. Collins said any potential legislation from the probe “should be consistent with keeping the free market free.” Companies “that offer new innovations, better solutions and more consumer benefit at lower prices often become big -- to the benefit of society,” he said.
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo aren’t liable for hosting content posted by known scammers, a key appellate court ruled Friday. Citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit sided (in Pacer) with the platforms over a group of 14 locksmiths. The group’s lawsuit claimed the platforms flood search engine results with listings from unlicensed locksmiths to incentivize legitimate locksmiths to pay for preferred listing placement. The platforms aren’t content providers because the information they’re hosting is provided entirely by third parties, the court said, and Section 230 protects computer services from liability. The court is incorrect that the platforms aren’t responsible for the content because they verify scammer locations, said Baldino's Lock & Key’s Mark Baldino. The platforms didn't comment.