A provision in federal law enacted early in the internet era has drawn bipartisan calls to reform or end it. Now a tech-related dust-up that conservatives call censorship may test if the idea still has cross-aisle appeal.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides legal protection for “interactive computer services,” such as Facebook and Twitter, to host content on their platforms that is violent, harassing, “or otherwise objectionable.”
Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, in January called for Section 230 to be “revoked, immediately.”
“It is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false,” said Biden, the former two-term vice president and 36-year Delaware senator.
Biden’s White House rival, President Trump, has taken a similar stance.
“REVOKE 230!” Trump tweeted in May. That came after Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to alter Section 230 and change the way they interpret and enforce it. In a tweet on Thursday after Twitter restricted another New York Post story that was a follow up to the original piece Twitter prohibited on its platform, Trump tweeted again about Section 230.
If Big Tech persists, in coordination with the mainstream media, we must immediately strip them of their Section 230 protections. When government granted these protections, they created a monster!pic.twitter.com/velyvYTOR0
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 15, 2020
The cause has attracted similar bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, with Republicans and Democrats criticizing major tech companies for seemingly brushing off responsibility for the most vile content to appear on their sites.
And actions by tech companies this week in response to a New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s emails just may be the impetus for lawmakers to push legislation that would eliminate, or at least scale back, Section 230 legal protections.
Facebook and Twitter on Wednesday restricted distribution of the New York Post story on their platforms. The tech giants went as far as locking the Twitter accounts of the New York Post itself, White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany, and the official Trump campaign, among others who attempted to share the story about Biden’s son.
North Carolina Republican Rep. Ted Budd dropped a bill Thursday that would allow Americans to file lawsuits against Big Tech companies who breach good faith user agreements, censor political speech, and suppress content.
Budd’s bill, titled Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act, would also make it illegal for the companies to receive Section 230 protections unless they changed their terms of service to promise to operate in good faith. Violations could trigger a $5,000 fine, actual damages, and attorney’s fees.
A companion bill in the Senate is being spearheaded by Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, along with fellow Republican Sens. Mike Braun of Indiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, and Marco Rubio of Florida.
“Recent acts of political censorship by Twitter and Facebook are a disgrace. Big Tech bias has gone too far in suffocating the voices of conservatives across our country,” Budd said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “If these companies want to continue to receive legal protection, they should be forced to play by a fair set of rules in good faith.”
Senate Republicans tweeted Wednesday night, “see you soon, @jack” and Rep. Ken Buck, a Colorado Republican, called on Attorney General Bill Barr to open an investigation into the tech firms and “consider removing Section 230 immunity for social media platforms that engage in political content moderation.”
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz first threatened the social media platform’s Sec. 230 protections in 2018 after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said during a hearing that his company was a “platform for all ideas.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat, said he would rather see Section 230 be reformed.
“I was the leading sponsor in the Senate of the SESTA Act that was designed to cut back on human trafficking on the internet,” Blumenthal told the Washington Examiner. “The overbroad machete cuts in Section 230 are less effective and less viable than a targeted approach.”
Changes to Section 230, Blumenthal said, should be done with “a scalpel not a hatchet.”
Hawley told reporters on Thursday he sent a letter to the Federal Elections Commission asking for an assessment on whether Twitter’s and Facebook’s actions constitute an in-kind contribution to the Biden campaign.
“I’m very concerned about potential violations of election law by Twitter and Facebook, including the appearance of coordination with the Biden campaign at this hour in a federal election,” said Hawley, a former Missouri attorney general. “This amount of coordination and interference appears to me to be unprecedented.”
