Amid lockdowns of social media accounts imposed by Facebook and Twitter, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai plans to move forward with an FCC rule that could limit a yearslong legal immunity Big Tech companies have enjoyed.
A provision in federal law enacted early in 1996 at the beginning of the internet era, known as 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.”
Big Tech companies, unlike traditional media, are known as platforms as opposed to publishers that are not protected by Section 230 and can be held liable for their content.
However, with this legal protection, the social media giants came under scrutiny for censoring conservative political content on their platforms, leading lawmakers such as Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley to question if Facebook and Twitter were acting more like publishers than platforms for all types of ideas for their users.
“Members of all three branches of the federal government have expressed serious concerns about the prevailing interpretation of the immunity set forth in Section 230 of the Communications Act. There is bipartisan support in Congress to reform the law. The U.S. Department of Commerce has petitioned the Commission to ‘clarify ambiguities in section 230.’ And earlier this week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that courts have relied upon ‘policy and purpose arguments to grant sweeping protections to Internet platforms’ that appear to go far beyond the actual text of the provision,” Pai said in a statement Thursday afternoon.
“As elected officials consider whether to change the law, the question remains: What does Section 230 currently mean? Many advance an overly broad interpretation that in some cases shields social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text of Section 230,” Pai continued, noting that the commission’s general counsel informed him that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230.
“Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning,” he said.
Pai added, “I have favored regulatory parity, transparency, and free expression. Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.”
Republicans called for action against Twitter and Facebook after a bombshell story in the New York Post related to Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden was restricted from being shared on both platforms.
“I think Twitter couldn’t have done themselves and social media companies a bigger disservice than the reckless way they’ve handled this latest episode,” Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the Washington Examiner. “So, I’m glad that the committee is going to be issuing subpoenas next week. I intend to vote in favor of the subpoenas for the social media platforms, and hopefully, we get some reforms.”
Twitter locked down the New York Post’s official Twitter account. Other high-profile social media accounts were locked down, including the personal handle of White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany as well as the official Trump campaign Twitter account, among others.
