With anti-sex trafficking legislation signed into law, tech groups are ready to oppose further legislative efforts that might weaken liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, an industry representative told us. Proponents of the recently passed bill said this is the start of a larger conversation about online platforms’ responsibilities to the public on privacy, propaganda and criminal behavior.
Republicans aren't ready to “pull the trigger” on social media privacy legislation, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, told us. But Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., believes GOP lawmakers will support a bipartisan bill he recently floated with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. (see 1804240046), the Social Media Privacy Protection and Consumer Rights Act (S-2728). “I’m not ready to turn Facebook into a regulated utility or even agree to any regulation at this point, but I do think there’s a lot of concern,” Cornyn said. “We’re going to have to sort it out, but it’s not just Facebook.” All platforms mining for data with monetary incentives deserve attention, he said.
Negotiators of the North American Free Trade Agreement should include Section 230-modeled protections for online intermediaries to encourage free speech and foster startup efforts, TechFreedom said Friday of a letter it sent with many tech groups and associations. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides liability protection for online hosts and moderators of user-generated content. “Without those protections, even the biggest tech companies would be discouraged from empowering their users to speak freely,” TechFreedom founder Berin Szoka said. “But for startups, the potential liability would be fatal.” Others signing the letter to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and leaders from Mexico and Canada include the Center for Democracy and Technology and Internet Association.
Facebook won't appear Thursday at the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on social media filtering, despite an invitation from concerned committee lawmakers from both parties (see 1804200049). Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told us he wants to better understand how Twitter decided to block a political video from House Communications Chairman Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., this fall. He voiced concern that other networks are censoring users over political differences: “Facebook is a leftist organization -- Twitter, Google. These are all [Democrat]-founded and Democrat-leaning, and it doesn’t mean that they’re absolutely unfair by any means, but they clearly have a preference.”
DOJ filed a federal indictment against Backpage.com owners, executives and employees on Monday, which drew praise from Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, author of recently passed anti-sex trafficking legislation. DOJ’s seizure of Backpage is proof that the legislation is needed, lawmakers said last week, while one critic argued it proves current law is working. The Senate passed the SESTA-FOSTA (the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers-Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking) package last month (see 1803210064), and Portman expects President Donald Trump to sign the legislation this week. “This bipartisan measure will make it easier to hold online sex traffickers accountable,” Portman said, calling DOJ’s seizure good news for victims and survivors of online sex trafficking. Co-sponsor Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said police “need this bill to enable them to take swift action against websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking of children online.” Meanwhile, TechFreedom argued that the seizure of Backpage proves law enforcement already has plenty of legal tools to pursue action against illicit actors and just needed to make it a priority. “Sex trafficking was exploited as an emotional pretext to chip away Section 230 immunity,” TechFreedom President Berin Szoka said, referring to a portion of the Communications Decency Act. Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R) said law enforcement will continue to find human sex traffickers and bring them to justice. Backpage unsuccessfully sued Hawley to block an investigation of the website.
Critics of the anti-sex trafficking legislation that passed the Senate Wednesday (see 1803210064) maintain it will result in broad censorship by websites seeking to avoid content-hosting liability, but proponents say the bill will have far-ranging, positive impacts for victims and families. Shortly after passage, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders released a statement of support from President Donald Trump: “The legislation empowers Federal, State, and local prosecutors to hold websites accountable for supporting the sale of sex trafficking victims.” Center for Democracy & Technology Director of Free Expression Emma Llansó said the new measure would drive sex trafficking activity offline or to foreign websites, while obstructing an open internet. Internet Association CEO Michael Beckerman called Communications Decency Act Section 230 a “key tool” for allowing Good Samaritan efforts to fight against trafficking: “IA will continue our work to preserve Section 230 and prevent attempts to weaken this crucial protection.” Consumer Watchdog praised passage. Privacy and Technology Project Director John Simpson called it “a chink in the Teflon of Google and Facebook’s shield of immunity.” The legislation “will have long range consequences not only for protection of individuals and families online, but also for a re-evaluation of these companies’ duties to police their platforms,” he said.
IBM opposes including intermediary liability protections -- like those contained in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- in updates currently under consideration in North American Free Trade Agreement negotiations, announced IBM Vice President-Government and Regulatory Affairs Christopher Padilla Thursday. With those protections, online platforms are free from liability for user content. As evidenced by the recent House approval of Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (HR-1865) (see 1802270057), “there is no longer a U.S. consensus that internet media companies should enjoy automatic blanket immunity from legal liability,” Padilla said, arguing it’s nonsensical to export a legal model that's increasingly being questioned domestically. Internet Association Senior Vice President-Global Government Affairs Melika Carroll emailed a statement Friday, saying the entire tech sector and broader business community continue to support intermediary liability protections in trade agreements. “These provisions preserve free speech, benefit consumers around the world, and enable untold value for American entrepreneurs well beyond the internet economy,” Carroll said.
The lead sponsors of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693) were still deciding at the end of last week whether they will seek to pass the existing language of their bill when it comes up for a floor vote the week of March 12, or instead pursue the combination with the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (HR-1865) the House passed Tuesday. The House cleared HR-1865 on a 388-25 vote after agreeing to add provisions from S-1693 over objections from some tech sector and privacy advocates (see 1802270057). Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., meanwhile, continued to raise objections to S-1693 that stalled the bill last year (see 1711080042 and 1801030047).
The House passed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (HR-1865) Tuesday evening on a 388-25 vote. The House approved a trio of amendments supported by lead sponsor Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., amid continued opposition by some tech, privacy and open internet proponents to the possible changes. The amendments included one from Rep. Mimi Walters, R-Calif., to include language from the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693), which the House cleared on a 308-107 vote. Both bills would amend Communications Decency Act Section 230 to make it easier to bring criminal charges against websites that knowingly facilitate or promote sex trafficking. Opponents of adding the S-1693 language say HR-1865's existing language is a more targeted approach (see 1801040050).
YouTube and Prager University are at odds over a preliminary injunction sought by the conservative group. Prager said in support of its motion for a preliminary injunction that the admission by YouTube and its Google parent that Prager videos don't contain age-restricted content, while contending the videos contain potentially mature content sufficient to warrant viewer access restrictions, are enough to justify the requested relief. Prager said in the docket 17-cv-6064 filing (in Pacer) Friday in U.S. District Court in San Jose that YouTube's acknowledgement its Restricted Mode can improperly restrict videos in a way to create viewpoint discrimination backs the group's push. Google/YouTube in a reply (in Pacer) Friday isaid Prager's case is "a public relations campaign disguised as a lawsuit" when it asks the court to ignore YouTube's First Amendment and Communications Decency Act Section 230 rights to help users avoid content on its service. Prager sued YouTube last fall over the restricted mode feature (see 1801030009).