Earlier this month, freshman Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., introduced legislation that would undermine the internet as we know it. Hawley’s “Ending Support for the Internet Censorship Act” would revise Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 and require large tech platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to be “politically neutral” in moderating user content.
While that may sound like a fine idea in principle, government enforcement of such a pie-in-the-sky standard could have severe unintended consequences, reminiscent of the failed Fairness Doctrine of yesteryear. There is no simple definition of neutrality, and big government providing one could expose users to more censorship — either from political pressure or regulators chilling speech.
Still, it’s important to understand Section 230 and its two fundamental provisions.
First, it protects tech companies from liability for the speech that its users express on its platforms. For example, Twitter cannot be sued as a company for defamatory tweets one of its user’s post. Second, it allows tech companies to moderate content on its platform in good faith. This allows Facebook, for example, to remove pornography and other content that would make its platform less desirable.
Hawley’s plan would require platforms with more than 30 million active users in the U.S., 300 million active users worldwide, or annual revenues exceeding $500 million to be certified by the Federal Trade Commission every two years that they were not “biased against a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint.”
This scheme seems a lot like a modern Fairness Doctrine, the Federal Communications Commission regulation in place from 1949 to 1987 that supposedly required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a fair and balanced manner.
The rule became increasingly impossible to enforce with the explosion of choice in TV and radio, and its repeal ultimately allowed for conservative talk radio to flourish. Hawley’s 21st-century Fairness Doctrine could similarly hamper competition and choice on the internet, putting platforms at the mercy of government bureaucrats.
And as we know from endless examples in history, bureaucrats are not exactly neutral arbiters, as evidenced by Lois Lerner and the Internal Revenue Services’ targeting of conservatives. Hawley’s 230 amendment would both empower the political party in power federally to regulate the net to their liking and force platforms to censor political speech even more.
On the former point, National Review’s David French asks:
On the latter point, the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein suggests:
Both outcomes are extremely undesirable.
That’s not to say that the internet as we know it is perfect, as there are legitimate concerns about social media platforms stifling political speech that need to be heard. However, conservatives should not sacrifice their free market principles so easily, but rather lean into them. Such issues should be solved through public discourse, pressure, and market competition.
And we’re already seeing this in action. In response to Facebook and Twitter’s misconduct, alternatives such as Parler and Telegram are emerging. Let’s allow the market to decide the future of the internet because, once we give control to government bureaucrats, there’s no going back.
Casey Given (@CaseyJGiven) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential blog. He is the executive director of Young Voices.
