Exclusive: Bipartisan duo revives bill to fight online child pornography
Sens. Josh Hawley and Dick Durbin will re-introduce legislation Wednesday that would hold tech companies accountabl e for hosting child sex abuse material.
Why it matters: The STOP CSAM Act would go after the statute that shields tech companies from being liable for what is posted on their platforms.
President Trump has previously shown support for getting rid of the liability shield, known as Section 230, and efforts to combat online deepfakes have the White House's attention.
What's inside: The bill would allow victims to bring federal civil lawsuits against companies that intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly promote, store, or make child sex abuse material available.
It also creates a new criminal provision prohibiting similar conduct.
Certain child victims and witnesses in court would also get enhanced privacy protections.
Threat level: The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children said that they saw an alarming increase in the use of AI to create child sexual abuse material in 2024.
"Every day that Congress fails to protect kids online is another day that online predators can victimize children and steal their innocence—and social media companies are totally complicit," Hawley said in a statement.
"Big Tech has woefully failed to police itself, and the American people are demanding that Congress intervene. We made significant headway last year to address Big Tech's failure to protect our kids online and it's time to build on that progress," Durbin said in a statement.
Flashback: The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously in 2023 after Hawley and Durbin agreed to an amendment to let people sue companies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
What Trump ordering an investigation into Biden's actions might mean legally and politically
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump has ordered an investigation into pardons and other executive actions issued by his predecessor, Joe Biden — launching an extraordinary effort to show that the Democrat hid his cognitive decline and was otherwise too mentally impaired to do the job. Trump, who turns 79 this month, has long questioned the mental acuity and physical stamina of Biden, and is now directing his administration to use governmental investigative powers to try and back up those assertions. Biden, 82, and now undergoing treatment for prostate cancer, dismissed Trump's actions as 'ridiculous.' Here's a look at what Trump is alleging, what impact it could have, and why the country may never have seen anything like this before. Trump directed his White House counsel and attorney general to begin an investigation into his own allegations that Biden aides hid from the public declining mental acuity in their boss. Trump is also casting doubts on the legitimacy of the Biden White House's use of the autopen to sign pardons and other documents. It marks a significant escalation in Trump's targeting of political adversaries, and could lay the groundwork for arguments by leading Republicans in Congress and around the country that a range of Biden's actions as president were invalid. 'Essentially, whoever used the autopen was the president,' Trump said Thursday. He then went further, suggesting that rogue elements within the Biden administration might have effectively faked the president's signature and governed without his knowledge — especially when it came to pushing policies that appeased the Democratic Party's far-left wing. 'He didn't have much of an idea what was going on,' Trump said, though he also acknowledged that he had no evidence to back up those assertions. A Trump fundraising email released a short time later carried the heading, 'A robot ran the country?' Legal experts are skeptical about that the investigation will do much more than fire up Trump's core supporters. 'I think it's more of a political act than one that will have any legal effect,' said Richard Pildes, a constitutional law scholar at New York University School of Law. He added: 'I think it's designed to continue to fuel a narrative that the administration wants to elevate, but courts are not going to second-guess these sorts of executive actions' undertaken by Biden. Trump has long questioned the legitimacy of pardons his predecessor issued for his family members and other administration officials just before leaving office on Jan. 20, people whom Biden was worried could be targeted by a Trump-led Justice Department. But Trump has more recently suggested Biden was unaware of immigration policies during his own administration, and said Thursday that aides to his predecessor pushed social issues like transgender rights in ways Biden might not have agreed with. It is well-established that a president's executive orders can easily be repealed by a successor issuing new executive actions — something Trump has done repeatedly since retaking the White House. That lets Trump wipe out Biden administration policies without having to prove any were undertaken without Biden's knowledge — though his predecessor's pardons and judicial appointments can't be so easily erased. 'When it comes to completed legal acts like pardons or appointing judges,' Pildes said, a later president 'has no power to overturn those actions.' Autopens are writing tools that allow a person's signature to be affixed automatically to documents. The Justice Department, under Democratic and Republican administrations, has recognized the use of an autopen by presidents to sign legislation and issue pardons for decades — and even Trump himself acknowledges using it. 'Autopens to me are used when thousands of letters come in from young people all over the country and you want to get them back,' Trump said Thursday. Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt said the 'consensus view is that, as long as the president has directed the use of the autopen in that particular instance, it is valid.' 'The only issue would be if someone else directed the use of the autopen without the President's approval,' Kalt, an expert on pardons, wrote in an email. Yes. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution bestows the president with the power 'to grant Reprieves and Pardons.' 'A president's pardons cannot be revoked. If they could, no pardon would ever be final,' American University politics professor Jeffrey Crouch, author of a book on presidential pardons, said in an email. 'There is no legal obstacle I am aware of to a president using an autopen on a pardon.' Kent Greenfield, a Boston College law professor, said, 'Once you pardon somebody, you can't go back and un-pardon them.' 'If it's done with a president's authority, I don't think it matters whether it's done with an autopen or not,' Greenfield added. 'The president's authority is the president's authority.' Trump's suggestions that Biden's administration effectively functioned without his knowledge on key policy matters go beyond questions about pardons and the president using the autopen. Even there, though, the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution. At the time, Trump celebrated the ruling as a 'BIG WIN' because it extended the delay in the Washington criminal case against him on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss. Such immunity would likely cover Biden as a former president. It might not extend to Biden administration officials allegedly acting without his knowledge — though Trump himself acknowledged he's not seen evidence of that occurring. Biden has dismissed Trump's investigation as 'nothing more than a mere distraction.' 'Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation, and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn't is ridiculous and false,' he said in a statement. In a word, no. There have been allegations of presidents being impaired and having their administrations controlled by intermediaries more than the public knew — including Edith Wilson, who effectively managed access to her husband, Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, after his serious stroke in 1919. Wilson's critics grumbled about a shadow presidency controlled by his wife, but the matter was never formally investigated by Congress, nor was it a major source of criticism for Wilson's Republican successor, Warren G. Harding. More recently, some questioned whether President John F. Kennedy struggled more than was publicly known at the time with Addison's Disease and debilitating back pains while in office. And there were questions about whether dementia might have affected Ronald Reagan during his second term, before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 1994, five years after he left office.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Medicaid spending in Mass. has nearly quadrupled in the past 20 years. It needs reform.
Advertisement Medicaid was The cost of this is staggering. The budget for the state's Medicaid program, called MassHealth, has to over Advertisement But this explosion in the cost of Medicaid begs the question: Has all this spending led to better health outcomes? Surprisingly, Despite these findings, even modest Medicaid reform in Republican proposals before Congress — like encouraging community engagement through volunteering or work, preventing duplicate payments to insurers, and closing state-level However, it should be noted that the current proposals in Washington — which the House passed last week and are now in the Republican-controlled Senate — will result in more Medicaid spending over 10 years, not less. The bill merely slows the rate of growth. Only in Washington, D.C., is more spending decried as a cut. The fundamental issue remains: Are we prioritizing the right goals? Advertisement The evidence on the power of connection is . Past state-level experiments with work engagement in programs like food stamps and welfare cash assistance offer a promising road map. A Medicaid reform could similarly refocus state efforts on connecting enrollees with community engagement rather than solely maximizing federal funding. Encouragingly, these past reforms also saw a halving of the time individuals needed to stay on public assistance. Shouldn't we celebrate if someone like J.D. could earn enough to transition to employer-based or ACA coverage? Sadly, too often, critics characterize any transition off Medicaid as Advertisement While Medicaid reform often faces bipartisan heartburn, paradoxically there's longtime bipartisan agreement that major entitlement programs are growing unsustainably. If we can't at least slow the rate of growth, in part by delivering better outcomes, then our fiscal house of cards may fall, which hurts the most vulnerable. Our leaders must shift the debate from simply protecting the flow of federal dollars to ensuring that every Medicaid dollar genuinely improves patient health. Current inertia seems more about preserving the status quo than addressing the health impact on individuals like J.D. Meanwhile, our communities suffer as we miss out on J.D.'s contributions to society. The federal proposals provide a crucial moment to discuss opening doors of opportunity rather than defending a system that requires poverty for coverage. It's time to move beyond simply paying insurance companies for a card in J.D.'s pocket and focus on reforms that foster human thriving.
2 hours ago
Judge and lawmakers question the Trump administration's plan to gut Job Corps centers
Members of Congress and a federal judge are questioning the Trump administration's plan to shut down Job Corps centers nationwide and halt a residential career training program for low-income youth that was established more than 50 years ago. The Department of Labor last week announced a nationwide 'pause of operations' for dozens of Job Corps centers run by private contractors. The department cited an internal review that concluded the program was costly and had a low success rate. The review also identified safety issues at the residential campuses. The Department of Labor said it would transition students and staff out of the locations by June 30. The program was designed for teenagers and young adults who struggled to finish high school in traditional school settings and then go on to obtain training and find jobs. Participants received tuition-free housing, meals and health care. Critics have argued that closing the campuses would leave young people homeless and deprive them of opportunities and hope. They also maintained the Trump administration did not have legal authority to suspend Job Corps because it was created by Congress. Lawmakers asked Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer about the decision when she appeared before the House Education and Workforce Committee on Thursday. 'Job Corps, which you know has bipartisan support in Congress, trains young, low-income people, and helps them find good-paying jobs and provides housing for a population that might otherwise be without a home,' U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott said. Scott, a Virginia Democrat, read from a letter Chavez-DeRemer wrote in support of Job Corps last year. The letter said the program increased participants' employment and wages, and decreased their reliance on public benefits. 'You've made a starkly abrupt shift from a champion to a destroyer of this important program,' said Democratic Rep. Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, adding that students in her district were distraught. In response, Chavez-DeRemer said she recognized that only an act of Congress could eliminate Job Corps. She said the Labor Department had instead used its authority to halt the program's operations but planned to comply with a federal court order that temporarily blocked the action. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter of New York issued a temporary restraining order on Wednesday that prohibited the Labor Department from terminating jobs, removing students from the 99 contractor-run centers or eliminating the Job Corps program without congressional authorization. The order was sought as part of a lawsuit filed Tuesday by the National Job Corps Association, a trade group which includes business, labor, volunteer and community organizations. The group alleged the Labor Department's decision would have disastrous consequences, including displacing tens of thousands of vulnerable young people and forcing mass layoffs. During Thursday's House committee hearing, Scott asked several Job Corps students in attendance to stand. 'These students were on their way to getting a good job and earning a living wage. On behalf of them, I urge you to immediately reverse the decision to effectively shut down all Job Corps centers,' Scott said. Chavez-DeRemer responded that the Trump administration wanted to eliminate ineffective training interventions. The report released in April by the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration said Job Corps operated at a $140 million deficit during the last fiscal year and had an average graduation rate of under 39%. 'Our recently released Job Corps transparency report showed that in 2023 alone, more than 14,000 serious incidents were reported at the Job Corps centers, including cases of sexual assault, physical violence, and drug use,' Chavez-DeRemer said. 'This program is failing to deliver safe and successful outcomes our young people deserve.' The National Job Corps Association maintained the statistics were misleading. It said the 14,000 serious incidents included power outages, inclement weather, athletic injuries that required treatment and adult students leaving campus without prior approva. The group also said that Job Corps' graduation rates have historically been above 60%, but were depressed by COVID-19 policies during the year the Labor Department reviewed. Seth Harris, senior fellow at the Burnes Center for Social Change at Northeastern University, said in an interview that Job Corps is wildly popular on Capitol Hill. He recalled having to slow down Job Corps due to funding challenges when he served as acting secretary of labor during former President Barack Obama's administration. 'I got angry calls from elected members of the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle,' Harris said. The Job Corps program was designed to help young people who were not succeeding in school or who had left school without a place to go, placing them in a residential setting outside their community and providing them with vocational training, he said. The Labor Department shutting down Job Corps would be illegal because there's a process outlined for closing down the centers which includes publishing performance data, justifying the closure and allowing time for public comment and remediation, he said. 'This is plainly illegal,' Harris said. 'But it is entirely on brand for Donald Trump to beat up on poor kids, largely kids of color, who are trying to make their lives better.'
