A Tennessee bill to regulate social media as common carriers cleared the House Business and Utilities Subcommittee in a voice vote Wednesday. The bill, which goes next to the Commerce Committee, would authorize the Tennessee Public Utilities Commission to probe and fine social websites for “intentionally deplatforming or shadow banning a user … if the basis of such action is rooted in political ideology, viewpoint discrimination, personal animus, or discrimination because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, or national origin,” said a HB-2369 summary. The bill responds to outrage from constituents banned by Big Tech, said sponsor Rep. Dennis Powers (R). Websites are censoring misinformation even though Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act restricts only obscene, lewd, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or objectionable things, said Rep. Jason Zachary (R): “Misinformation is not part of that.” Treating sites as common carriers is a good way to keep the bill from running into legal trouble faced by similar Texas and Florida laws, he said. Some members raised concerns. Rep. Dwayne Thompson (D) said he doesn’t like the government stepping on private businesses. Rep. Patsy Hazlewood (R) appreciates the goal but worries about ceding so much control to the PUC and allowing the agency to levy large fines, she said. The Senate Commerce Committee cleared companion bill SB-2161 Tuesday (see 2203160053).
Section 230
News Media Alliance (NMA) President David Chavern is “optimistic” about the future of the proposed Journalism Competition Protection Act and favors changing Communications Decency Act Section 230 to reduce liability protections for tech companies, he told the Media Institute at the group’s virtual luncheon Wednesday. “We’re responsible for the decisions we make; the platforms are responsible for the decision they made,” Chavern said.
The Center for Democracy & Technology names George Slover, ex-Consumer Reports, general counsel and senior counsel-competition policy … Semiconductor Industry Association hires Rina Pal-Goetzen, ex-3D printed microTec, as director-global policy … Consumer Federation of America announces Erin Witte, former Virginia assistant attorney general, as director-consumer protection, replacing Susan Grant, who becomes senior fellow.
NTCA Director-Government Affairs Adam Jorde says he’s moving to Twilio as lead-government affairs, communications policy … State Senate confirms Ann Rendahl as commissioner-Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission for second six-year term ending Jan. 1, 2027 …Intelsat names Raytheon’s David Wajsgras as its next CEO, effective April 4, succeeding Stephen Spengler, who announced his planned retirement in October ... Analog Devices taps Intel’s Gregory Bryant for newly created roles as executive vice president and president-business units, effective March 14, with oversight for industrial, automotive, communications, digital healthcare and consumer segments.
The Supreme Court should review the “proper scope” of Communications Decency Act Section 230 immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas said Monday as the high court declined to review a Facebook-related sex-trafficking case. “Assuming Congress does not step in to clarify §230’s scope, we should do so in an appropriate case,” he wrote in a statement accompanying the denial of certiorari in Jane Doe v. Facebook. The case stems from a lawsuit a Facebook user filed against the platform. The plaintiff, listed as Jane Doe, was a minor when she received a friend request from an adult user, and was then lured into meeting up in person, raped, beaten and forced into sex trafficking in 2012, according to filings. The Supreme Court shouldn’t review Section 230 in this case because there are outstanding legal questions for the Texas Supreme Court, Thomas said.
Oral argument in the tech industry’s lawsuit against a Texas social media law will help the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals understand how online platforms interact with the First Amendment and whether private companies have the right to “discriminate against speakers,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed Wednesday in docket 21-51178. Platforms are incorrect that the First Amendment “gives them a right to discriminate freely against viewpoints, without any sunlight,” Paxton argued. It would “strain credulity to say Section 230 protects Platforms when they censor speakers based on race,” he wrote. “Likewise here, Section 230 does not protect them for censoring based on speaker viewpoint.” He also disagreed with claims the new law violates the First Amendment: Laws requiring entities to neutrally host speakers don’t implicate the First Amendment because such laws regulate platform conduct, not speech, he said.
Democratic FCC nominee Gigi Sohn and FTC nominee Alvaro Bedoya cleared an initial confirmation hurdle Thursday after the Senate Commerce Committee voted 14-14 on both picks, but they still face a long road to floor approval, said lawmakers and other officials in interviews. Panel Democrats uniformly backed Sohn and Bedoya, but all Republicans opposed them. Six of the 14 Republicans attended the executive session, fulfilling expectations they wouldn’t boycott the meeting (see 2203020076). The committee also tied 14-14 on Consumer Product Safety Commission nominee Mary Boyle. It advanced National Institute of Standards and Technology director nominee Laurie Locascio and International Trade Administration nominee Grant Harris on voice votes.
Opponents are debating the legacy of a 2018 anti-sex trafficking law as the Senate prepares to take up a similar Section 230-related measure in the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act (see 2202100071). Courts, meanwhile, continue to iron out case law on Communications Decency Act liability protections.
Communications Decency Act Section 230 doesn’t allow platforms to engage in “arbitrary discrimination” like banning users for political speech, attorneys for ex-President Donald Trump argued Tuesday in a lawsuit against YouTube in U.S. District Court in Oakland in docket 4:21-cv8009. Trump sued Facebook, Google, Twitter and their CEOs in July, claiming his suspensions after the Jan. 6 insurrection amount to illegal censorship (see 2107070065). Congress intended for Section 230 to benefit all Americans, and a First Amendment principle is that “all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen,” Trump’s team filed in response to DOJ’s brief on the constitutionality of Section 230. Trump argued the social media platforms violated the First Amendment. Platforms like YouTube act as common carriers when they “solicit and host third-party content,” they argued: That means any applications of Section 230 that “protect acts of arbitrary discrimination by Defendants would be unconstitutional.”
Sen. Rick Scott of Florida’s 11-point plan for GOP policies to "rescue America” if the party wins control of Congress in the November elections and the White House in 2024 calls for the FCC to “hold online platforms and broadband providers accountable for not adequately providing tools for parents to keep” the “explosion of pornography and cyber predators … out of their homes.” Scott included the call for FCC action as part of a broader proposal for protecting “the American family” by defending it “from societal elements that erode it.” The National Republican Senatorial Committee's chairman, Scott believes the U.S. “must enforce existing federal obscenity laws. Our society has almost given up on demanding decency; we must aim higher.” His proposal also targets major U.S. tech companies, pressing for significant changes to Communications Decency Act Section 230. The federal government should treat “all social media platforms that censor speech and cancel people … like publishers and subject to legal action,” the proposal said. “We will require big tech platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, to receive express consent (not as a condition of use) before using Americans’ personal information in any manner, and make it simple for users to opt out.” Tech “platforms will also be required to obtain user consent to sell, share, or convey user data to a third-party entity,” the proposal said.