While Congress appears ready to repeal one of the Internet’s most important laws protecting free speech, they are ignoring how that law protects and benefits the ability of millions of Americans to speak online every day.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday an account that would end Section 230 (47 USC § 230) within 18 months. The authors of the bill argue that setting a deadline for amending or eliminating Section 230 will force the Big Tech online platforms to the negotiating table to create a new regime of intermediary liability.
Take action
Ending Section 230 will make big tech monopolies even worse
As EVF says for yearsSection 230 is essential for protecting individuals ability to speak, organize and create online.
Congress knew it precisely what Section 230 would do – that it would lay the groundwork for all kinds of rulings on the Internet, on both small and large websites. And that’s exactly what happened.
Section 230 does not conflict with American values. It keeps them going in the digital world. People are able to find and create their own communities, and moderate them as they see fit. People and companies are responsible for their own speech, but (with some exceptions) not that of others.
The law is not a shield for Big Tech. It is critical that the law benefits the millions of users who do not have the resources to build and host their own blogs, email services, or social media sites, and instead rely on services to deliver that speech to host. Section 230 also benefits thousands of small online services that host voice. These people are being excluded because the authors of the bill are pursuing a dangerously misleading policy.
If Big Tech has a seat at the table in any future discussion about what rules should govern internet speech, EFF has done so no trust that the outcome will protect and benefit internet users, as Section 230 currently does. If Congress is serious about rewriting the Internet’s speech rules, it should abandon this bill and spend time listening to the small services and regular users who would be harmed if they repealed Section 230.
Section 230 protects ordinary internet users
The bill introduced by House Energy & Commerce Chairman Cathy McMorris Rogers (R-WA) and Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) is based on a series of faulty assumptions and fundamental misunderstandings about Section 230. Mike Masnick at TechDirt has already explained many of the flawed premises and factual errors that its co-sponsors have made.
We will not repeat the many errors that Masnick identifies. Instead, we want to focus on what we see as a glaring omission in the cosponsor’s argument: how central Section 230 is to ensuring that everyone can speak online.
Let’s start with the text of section 230. Importantly, the law protects both online services and users. It says that “no provider or user will be treated as the publisher” of content created by another. That clearly aligns with the belief of most Americans that people should be held accountable for their own speech—and not that of other people.
Section 230 protects individual bloggers, everyone who forwards an emailand social media users who have ever done so shared again or retweeted someone else’s content online. Section 230 also protects individual moderators who may remove or otherwise control the online content of others, as well as anyone who does so offers web hosting services.
Like EFF has done explainedOnline speech is often the target of unfair lawsuits. Big Tech can afford to pursue these lawsuits without Section 230. Everyday Internet users, community forums, and small businesses cannot. Engine has estimated that without Section 230, many startups and small services would be swamped with costly lawsuits that could drive them offline.
Removing Section 230 will create a field day for the Internet’s worst users
The co-sponsors say too many websites and apps have “refused” to go after “predators, drug dealers, sex traffickers, extortionists and cyberbullies,” and imagine that removing Section 230 will somehow force these services to better moderate user-generated content on their sites.
Nothing could be further from the truth. If lawmakers are legitimately motivated to help online services root out unlawful activity and terrible content appearing online, the last thing they should do is scrap Section 230. Current law strongly encourages websites and apps, both large and small, to kicking off their worst-behaved usersto remove objectionable content and, in cases of illegal conduct, cooperate with law enforcement authorities to hold those users accountable.
Take action
Tell Congress: Ending Section 230 Will Hurt Users
If Congress repeals Section 230, pre-digital legal rules surrounding content distribution would take effect. That law strongly discourages services from moderating or even being aware of user-generated content. This is because the more a service moderates user contentthe greater the chance that he will be held liable for that content. Under that legal regime, online services will have a huge incentive not to moderate and not to look for bad behavior. By taking the bill’s sponsors at their word, TThis would result in the exact opposite of their goal of protecting children and adults from harmful online content.
