Justice Department Releases Its Dangerous & Unconstitutional Plan To Revise Section 230
from the it-never-ends dept
Every day it's something new. The latest is that the Justice Department has come out with its official proposal to revise Section 230. As you may recall, back in February, the DOJ held some hearings about Section 230, followed by announcing some vague and contradictory guidelines for reform in early March.
Apparently between March and now there's been nothing more important for the Justice Department to be working on, because it's now blasted out its full unconstitutional proposal for reforming Section 230 and it's like a greatest hits of bad ideas. You can look at the redline version of the law itself, but the DOJ's announcement summarizes the revisions in two giant buckets: (1) "promoting transparency and open discourse" and (2) "addressing illicit activity online." It will not surprise you that the actual recommendations would do neither of these things. There's a lot in here and I'm honestly just too tired of going through and debunking all the various bad ideas in these proposals, so I'll just highlight a few egregious parts.
First off, like the recent "Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act" and the soon to be marked up "Online Content Policy Modernization Act" from Senator Lindsey Graham, the DOJ's bill would remove the term "otherwise objectionable" (get your t-shirts while they're still relevant!), and simply create a longer list of why a website could moderate content. It would also require an "objectively reasonable belief" that the content falls into one of those categories to qualify. The new list of acceptable reasons to moderate content to keep your immunity:
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user has an objectively reasonable belief is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, promoting terrorism or violent extremism, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected
This is pretty similar to the two bills listed above. The only real difference is that this one adds in the promotion of "violent extremism" which you already know that this DOJ will use to include trying to force social media companies to take down Antifa and BLM content.
But, of course, as we discussed with the previous bills, this is clearly unconstitutional. It is a form of regulation of content that is not content neutral, and that's not allowed. Also, note what kind of content is not included here: racist, homophobic, hateful content would not be covered in many cases. Nor would spam. Yes, in some cases it could be argued that such content is "harassing" or perhaps it might qualify for some of the other categories, but most of it would lead a site to not have 230 protections. Websites would still have 1st Amendment protections, but to fight that legal battle would be hugely expensive and destructive for most websites -- meaning that many will not fight at all.
The bill would also expand 230's exemptions such that federal civil actions were no longer exempt (as per the FTC's wish). It also includes a bunch of other carve-outs that I'm too tired to go through, but will note that it would appear to allow state Attorneys General to bring lawsuits against websites that were previously barred by 230. This would be allowed in cases where the sites had knowledge of the dissemination of content that would violate Federal criminal law, that the site was notified of this content, and then failed to remove it or failed to preserve evidence of it.
This section is at least worded slightly more carefully that earlier proposals, but would still lead to the risk of significant censorship at the behest of Attorneys General who criticize a website's content moderation practices -- which again would likely make it unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment.
It would then throw in a long list of new laws that were exempt from 230, basically taking the FOSTA model of saying that 230 no longer applied to sex trafficking, and saying "ditto for anti-terrorism laws, child sex abuse laws, cyberstalking, and antitrust." There are, of course, significant problems with each of these. We're already seeing how much harm FOSTA has caused with no indication that it helped stop any sex trafficking, and now the DOJ wants to just expand that treatment to a bunch of other laws, just because.
The anti-terrorism one should be particularly concerning. We've wrote about a whole bunch of cases involving people who sued social media for "material support for terrorism" in response to a loved one being killed by terrorists. The arguments are, roughly, that because their family member was killed by a terrorist, and because some terrorist-connected individuals used social media, clearly, the social media companies are liable for their family member's death.
Courts have, rightly, been tossing these cases out on 230 grounds. But if the DOJ got its way, that would no longer be possible, and we'd likely see a ton of frivolous litigation in response.
Another change is an attempt to remove 230 protections for sites that fact check the President. This is not how it's framed of course, but it's pretty obvious why Bill Barr wanted this in there. Existing 230 says that you can be liable for content if you were "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development" of the information. The new bill would add to that:
Being responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information includes, but is not limited to, instances in which a person or entity solicits, comments upon, funds, or affirmatively and substantively contributes to, modifies, or alters information provided by another person or entity.
Basically, fact check someone, and you can lose your 230 protections. Of course, again, this is unconstitutional, as it's an attempt to suppress the very thing that 230 (and the 1st Amendment) were designed to encourage: more open discussion. Indeed, for Bill Barr -- who has whined about "cancel culture" -- to include this in there is deeply ironic. This kind of thing will decrease incentives to add commentary or fact checks, thus suppressing speech.
Finally, the new bill would have a whole section to define what is meant by "good faith" in content moderation, which is basically that you have to clearly delineate in your policies what is allowed and what is not, and your moderation must match that. This is, of course, impossible. It is written by people who have never had to moderate content at all. It is written by people who don't understand how content moderation is not black and white, but often vast areas of gray where judgment calls need to be made. It is written by people, in bad faith, assuming that all users of a website are acting in good faith. So many of these attempts to reform Section 230 refuse to take into account that people will seek to game the system. And restricting sites' ability to stop those gaming the system is a recipe for disaster.
But, hey, this is Bill Barr's DOJ and Donald Trump's White House. A policy proposal that is a recipe for disaster, as well as unconstitutional, seems to be par for the course.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: civil actions, content moderation, doj, ftc, otherwise objectionable, section 230
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wrong word
Indeed, for Bill Barr -- who has whined about "cancel culture" -- to include this in there is deeply ironic.
The word you're looking for is 'hypocritical', not ironic. Ironic would be actually wanting less content to be removed and proposing a bill that would result in more, this is a case of someone who is only objecting that the assholes keep getting the boot and is trying to ensure that that content can't be removed.
It is written by people who have never had to moderate content at all. It is written by people who don't understand how content moderation is not black and white, but often vast areas of gray where judgment calls need to be made. It is written by people, in bad faith, assuming that all users of a website are acting in good faith.
Barr deserves absoluteley zero benefit of the doubt, so it seems reasonable to assume the absolute worst until proven otherwise, which in this case is restricting sites to specific violations so that the assholes can find wiggle room around said rules and sites are stuck always playing catch-up. Restrict sites to specific rules on acceptable behaviour and you force them into constantly dealing with 'It says I can't say X, however while what I said was similar to X, and is commonly accepted to be equivalent to X, it isn't specifically X' type of rule lawyering by the assholes.
As always of course it's worth pointing out how the lot always going on about 'law and order' and how much they love the constitution seem to have an almost pathological hatred for both, putting forth/proposing blatantly unconstitutional rules and laws the second either law or constitution get in their way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong word
Negative. This will further shrink, censor and consolidate media giants who can afford to play in the new paradigm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the DOJ doing writing law? Has congress delegated their authority? Because I thought it was the responsibility of Congress to write the laws, they do refer to themselves as law makers - LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A.L.E.C. has been writing these laws for the right wing fascists for a decade. What made you think the apparatchiks actually read the laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Longer than that, friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Longer than that, friend."
Unclear for how long, exactly...but at the very least you can point to the McCarthy and Hoover era and demonstrate that quite a lot of legislation appears to have been written by or on behalf of some fairly draconian "law enforcers".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'They say two-thousand-twenty party over
Oops out of time
So tonight I'm gonna party like it's 1939
Yeah, Yeah'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pssst, zip up your fly... your partisanship is showing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Assuming that wasn't aimed at Barr I'm not sure that arguing that 'calling out unconstitutional bullshit' is partisan is sending the message you want it to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't the bill be called enabling censorship through the threat of bankruptcy via baseless legal suites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would be a more accurate name to be sure but it would also require honesty, which is a trait well beyond the reach of the likes of Barr and others trying to undermine 230.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... so if I retweeted one of Trump's tweets with "See what our impeached and manifestly unfit president has done for us today" .... So someone can now sue me for Trump's content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just what you'd expect from the Unfounded Bastards of Trumpworld... defunding democracy wherever they find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clearly unconstitutional
Since what is clearly unconstitutional is a supreme court call, this may have been clearly unconstitutional in the past but mostly likely is not anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: clearly unconstitutional
I actually doubt if this order will actually see movement. It’s a bi-partisan isssue, but the only thing both Democrats and Republicans agree is that Section 230 needs to be either reformed or revoked entirely. That’s pretty much the extent of the agreement. Either party is at opposite extremes on this one issue. Democrats with beef on Section 230 want more regulation to battle misinformation and hate speech whilest the Republicans want less regulation so that their free speech would be respected. Both arguments are dangerously false as they oversimplify what is a pretty straightforward law.
There’s no doubt that Republicans would trip over themselves to make a bill based on Barr’s wishlist. Something might make it out if the senate. But there’s one itsy, burst, tiny detail: the House, where I have no doubt will probably be dead on arrival.
And then there’s the factor of if they actually get to it. Between the vote for major Economic aid for businesses devastated by the pandemic (which hasn’t been approved yet), RBG’s successor, and all the other bills still pending, a bill bent on dismantling section 230 would probably won’t be the top of everyone’s list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this bill was passed some websites would remove forums or user comments since this makes moderation more complex and if you
moderate in the wrong way or remove spam you could be liable to be sued .
See what happened with Fosta which caused the removal of dating personal ads on most websites.
It could reduce competition from small websites and make Facebook stronger as it can afford to pay lawyers to deal with this pointless bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Only up to a point, but collusion amongst various government attorneys could sink Facebook using tax payer money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except they probably won't. Facebook have been one of the sites most friendly to hosting right-wing hate groups and not fact checking outright propaganda from the right-wing. Most likely, they'd kill the ones who have dared stand up to them, and use the possibility of shut down to blackmail Facebook into doing even more of their bidding.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All those who want to rewrite 230 want to do so simply to take away the protections built in under the purposeful circumstances because they want to rnsure that anything that happens that they personally dont like, legal or not, by anyone or on any site they purposefully dont like or just want to bankrupt fighting the charges, can do! Why are these not just draconian but downright fascist objectives being tolerated, being allowed? What the hell is going on with this country? The police basically are not interested in protecting the people anymore, now they have been given the right to kill anyone they chose and every effort is made to protect them whilst every excuse is given and encouraged to blame those killed with ficticious 'crimes', justifying their killing, even unarmed and not being threatening. This is the country we now have and its gonna be generations and total rebellion with countless more deaths trying to right even this injustice, let alone any others! And dont forget, the top echelon of the country are encouraging this behavior! Even worse, they want to blast the 1st amendment and other parts of the Constitution to pieces to further their people and rights-fucking agenda! It wont stop until the people have had all rights and protections abolished and we are forced back into the ages we fought to overthrow, when we could say 'no, no more! Enough is enough!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Policing for white dummies
FAQ section:
Q: What do I do when I 'accidentally' kill an unarmed black man?
A: "Make him a suspect" ... Just don't write it on your original incident report... you idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]