FCC head says commission can interpret Section 230 regulations, signals plan to do so
Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai on Thursday announced that the agency would move forward with new rules that would "clarify the meaning" of the law that regulates Internet publishers and platforms.
Credit: FCC
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad protections for online platforms shielding them from liability for content posted by others on their sites -- including illicit material assuming certain actions were taken by the platforms. The protections allowed early platforms to flourish, but has come under scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators.
In a statement on Thursday, Pai said that the FCC's general counsel informed him that the Commission has the "legal authority to interpret Section 230." On that advice, Pai said he would move forward "with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning."
The FCC chairman also said that the U.S. Commerce Department recently petitioned the agency to clarify ambiguities in the Section 230 protections, and noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that the courts have applied Section 230 in a way that appears to "go far beyond the actual text of the provision."
In September, the U.S. Justice Department unveiled draft legislation that would reform the legal protections. The U.S. Senate has also subpoenaed the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to testify before Congress about the existing protections.
Section 230 has been a favorite target of Republicans, who believe that social media companies use those protections to censor conservative viewpoints. Democrats have their own issues with the law, including that it shields social media platforms when they proliferate misinformation, disinformation, and misleading content.
The Justice Department included elements in its legislation that would deny immunity to platforms that don't take action on illicit content, and also includes a content for child sexual abuse. Existing proposed reforms, including the ones suggested by the Department of Justice, would require more moderation by platforms and social media, not less, to qualify for protections against users posting illicit content.
It isn't clear how Pai intends to reform or narrow the protections of Section 230, nor is it clear if the agency actually has the authority to do so beyond its own attorneys saying it does.
"Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech," Pai said. "But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."
Credit: FCC
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides broad protections for online platforms shielding them from liability for content posted by others on their sites -- including illicit material assuming certain actions were taken by the platforms. The protections allowed early platforms to flourish, but has come under scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators.
In a statement on Thursday, Pai said that the FCC's general counsel informed him that the Commission has the "legal authority to interpret Section 230." On that advice, Pai said he would move forward "with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning."
I intend to move forward with an @FCC rulemaking to clarify the meaning of #Section230.
Read my full statement below. pic.twitter.com/LhUz5XMdSC-- Ajit Pai (@AjitPaiFCC)
The FCC chairman also said that the U.S. Commerce Department recently petitioned the agency to clarify ambiguities in the Section 230 protections, and noted that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that the courts have applied Section 230 in a way that appears to "go far beyond the actual text of the provision."
In September, the U.S. Justice Department unveiled draft legislation that would reform the legal protections. The U.S. Senate has also subpoenaed the CEOs of Facebook, Google, and Twitter to testify before Congress about the existing protections.
Section 230 has been a favorite target of Republicans, who believe that social media companies use those protections to censor conservative viewpoints. Democrats have their own issues with the law, including that it shields social media platforms when they proliferate misinformation, disinformation, and misleading content.
The Justice Department included elements in its legislation that would deny immunity to platforms that don't take action on illicit content, and also includes a content for child sexual abuse. Existing proposed reforms, including the ones suggested by the Department of Justice, would require more moderation by platforms and social media, not less, to qualify for protections against users posting illicit content.
It isn't clear how Pai intends to reform or narrow the protections of Section 230, nor is it clear if the agency actually has the authority to do so beyond its own attorneys saying it does.
"Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech," Pai said. "But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."
Comments
you can’t pretend you are a carrier while controlling what is said.
As it stands, companies have first amendment protections, and those would likely have to be completely repealed before any meaningful section 230 reform happens.
personally, I agree the legislation doesn’t fit, and Twitter should just be treated as a common carrier. But then it can’t control the content. Interesting dilemma.
Clarity in what regard?
It's possible that the FCC can provide clarity on some aspects of how Section 230 should be interpreted. But what aspects would those be?
Some aspects - e.g., the unconditioned immunity of internet providers and users (as not being treated as the publishers of others' speech) - are already quite clear.
As one example among many, a friend of mine had his Facebook post ‘fact checked’ (i.e. censored) and the only thing it had was a link to a CDC page giving statistics on the effectiveness of mask wearing in a specific study of coronavirus cases. The CDC website, the CDC’s data itself, was considered dangerous enough to warrant censoring. If that’s not questionable enough, the idea that masks (of the type that the majority of people wear) are effective in stopping the spread of the coronavirus is not conclusively supported by any science right now. So Facebook is censoring data from the CDC because they say it could be misleading even though how they claim it’s misleading isn’t scientifically proven. That’s called imposing an unproven opinion upon millions of people.
When a service provider is imposing their own opinions on what users post—which is absolutely what’s going on—then they become publishers. By controlling the content to fit a specific perspective they are effectively publishing content. Hiding behind ‘independent fact checkers’ doesn’t mean that’s not what’s going on. They should be neutral, all voices heard equally (according to what is legal, at least).
Twitter could say: We will delete all tweets that express support for President Trump. And it could put that policy into effect. And it still wouldn't, under existing law, be treated as a publisher when it came to any tweets it left up. It is responsible for its own speech, not that of others. The same is true of you and me, as internet users. That's how Section 230 works.
All of this bolded is false by every legal definition. As it stands, Facebook is able to moderate as they see fit, and is able to fact-check as they see fit under whatever criteria they feel is appropriate. How you feel about their moderation is irrelevant.
What Facebook (likely) moderated is the invalid interpretation of the CDC study that certain venues are spreading, and in no way does that make them a publisher. Regardless of what POTUS says, the CDC study does not say that 85% of mask-wearers will get COVID-19, and you are welcome to delve into it further elsewhere, if you are so inclined. This is what Facebook is moderating. Facebook, Twitter, or any other Internet venue are not required to leave public every opinion by any user that stops by, and they shouldn't be. And, under current law, like I said, companies have first amendment protections.
You are welcome to dislike what Facebook is doing, and disagree with what the law calls a publisher, but it doesn't change the law. And, Pai can't either by himself.
AppleInsider is responsible for what I publish on AppleInsider's main page. I am responsible for what I post here in the forums, the same that you are responsible for what you post here. AppleInsider is not responsible, and should never be responsible, for what you, me, or any other reader posts here in the forums. Facebook and Twitter are the same, in that regard.
Same with allowing the POTUS to publish falsehoods, lies, and factual misinformation. It isn’t his platform, and he has to follow the rules of the private platform. He’s free to publish as many press releases on his own website as he wants tho and not worry about being fact-checked for falsehoods, lies, and factual misinformation.
I'm laughing about this. They pull the protections of Section 230 and far from making the companies open their sites up, they are going to double and triple down on "censorship". You think they restrict certain viewpoints now? You ain't seen nothing like what will happen. If they are suddenly responsible for what appears on their sites, they will chop anything that is controversial, and that will mostly be right wing opinions. Aren't some conservative talking heads continually going on about how Silicon Vally is so "liberal". Well if they do what they are threatening, there's no reason for FaceBook, Twitter, etc to hold back.
I've got my popcorn.
I think AppleInsider could possibly find a compromise solution. Maybe moderate all comments. Or maybe only allow people with a long history of non-hostile comments to continue commenting.