Section 230

The House Communications Subcommittee advanced the Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill (HR-1644) Tuesday on a party-line 18-11 vote, clearing the way for a likely full House Commerce Committee vote on the bill next week. HR-1644 and Senate companion S-682, filed earlier this month, would add a new title to the Communications Act that says the FCC order rescinding its 2015 rules "shall have no force or effect." The bill retroactively would restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service (see 1903060077).

The U.S. should make concerns about China less of a central factor in developing 5G deployment plans, said Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., during an appearance on C-SPAN's The Communicators online and set to have been televised over the weekend. House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., meanwhile, continued during a separate interview also set to be shown then to push lawmakers to consider whether edge providers should be considered common carriers given their importance as online gatekeepers (see 1903080032). The lawmakers differed on whether the Save the Internet Act net neutrality bill (HR-1644/S-682) will get significant bipartisan support.

Without Communications Decency Act Section 230 protections, online media would “face an onslaught of bad-faith lawsuits” and pressure from the powerful to silence critics, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said Tuesday. Republicans like Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri claim tech companies have gotten off easily with liability protections. President Donald Trump accused Twitter, Facebook and Google of coordinated anti-conservative bias. There's "big discrimination" against conservative users and groups, he said during a Tuesday joint news conference with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. "It’s collusive, and it’s very, very fair to say that we have to do something about it," Trump said. Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is suing Twitter for alleged defamation and negligence, citing accounts sharing critical and insulting content about him. Calls to alter Section 230 also have come since the New Zealand mass shooting. “Tech companies certainly need to continue to be far more vigorous about identifying, fingerprinting and blocking content and individuals who incite hate and violence,” Wyden said. But he warned that forcing tech companies to intervene could have First Amendment consequences.

House Commerce Committee ranking member Greg Walden, R-Ore., said Thursday he's disappointed that committee Democrats are interested in pursuing only their own net neutrality bill, the Save the Internet Act, but he's also looking at future options. House Communications Subcommittee Chairman Mike Doyle, D-Pa., said Friday he filed the House version of the bill with 132 co-sponsors, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J. That bill and Senate companion S-682 would add a new title to the Communications Act that says the FCC's rescission order “shall have no force or effect" (see 1903060077). The bill would retroactively restore reclassification of broadband as a Communications Act Title II service and would bar the FCC from reissuing a rescission order. A Tuesday House Communications Subcommittee hearing is expected to focus on only the Democrats' bill and not discuss a trio of GOP-led measures that avoid using Title II (see 1902070056 and 1903050042). Democrats have been unenthusiastic about the GOP legislation (see 1902220001). The Save the Internet Act is "not something the White House is going to be signing, and I doubt the Senate will pass it," Walden told reporters. "Hopefully we can find" a path forward. Walden said he believes lawmakers should use work on net neutrality as a way of re-examining online platforms’ content liability protections under Communications Decency Act Section 230 because edge providers' argument they need the statute makes them sound like common carriers. "It may be time to take a look at" changing aspects of that statute, because it "seems kind of peculiar to argue on the one hand you get Section 230 protection because you're a common carrier but on the other hand call for net neutrality legislation" that governs "everybody but yourself," he said. "We've had hearings on shadow banning, we've had hearings on the algorithms and there's not a real clear picture here" about "how some of these platforms operate." Net neutrality and Section 230 "are distinct policies that both give consumers more access to ideas and content online,” an Internet Association spokesperson said. "Net neutrality means consumers, not ISPs, get to decide where they go online," while Section 230 "allows online platforms to host -- and to moderate -- user generated content online."

Removing liability protections from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act results in heavier content moderation, evidenced by impacts of a new anti-sex trafficking law (see 1806290044), Facebook Public Policy Manager Lori Moylan said at the Cato Institute Friday. Moylan said it’s likely some Conservative Political Action Conference attendees might argue that without Section 230 protections, Facebook “would no longer accidentally take down any conservative political speech,” which is “simply not true.”

Google opposes laws mandating proactive content filtering and monitoring, “overly rigid timelines for content removal” or other “harsh penalties” for platforms acting in good faith, Senior Vice President-Global Affairs Kent Walker blogged Thursday. Industry, government, society and users should share content moderation responsibility, he said, supporting industry transparency reports. He cited ongoing debate about the best regulatory approaches, including Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the EU’s e-Commerce Directive.

The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to hear a case in which the California Supreme Court ruled Yelp can’t be forced to remove negative third-party reviews from its site (see 1807030023). Engine Org Executive Director Evan Engstrom applauded the high court's certiorari denial of Hassell v. Yelp, saying Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ensures startups don’t face “ruinous liability for the speech of their users.”

Congress needs to review “Good Samaritan” protections in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, National Religious Broadcasters said Wednesday, citing the absence of industry creating a “free speech charter” (see 1812100036). “It is unacceptable for technology giants to discriminate by algorithmic bias or human will against users just because their viewpoints are not congruent with ideas popular in Silicon Valley,” NRB CEO Jerry Johnson said. The Internet Association didn’t comment.

State attorneys general have an obligation to protect consumers against deception from online platforms like Facebook, Mississippi AG Jim Hood (D) told us Wednesday. Hood, who battled Google on various legal fronts, discussed a growing trend of tech-related enforcement from state entities. Washington, D.C., AG Karl Racine (D) recently sued Facebook over the Cambridge Analytica privacy breach (see 1812190039).

Less than 30 percent of Americans think government should ban political bias from online platforms, and 19 percent would support a ban if it would limit free speech, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation reported Monday. Silicon Valley should take concrete, self-governing steps to limit censorship of conservative and Christian views, National Religious Broadcasters wrote Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple Monday. If not, Congress should review Communications Decency Act Section 230 safe harbors for platforms, NRB said. The Internet Association didn’t comment.