Latest news with #CommunicationsDecencyAct
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Section 230 Was Hijacked by Big Tech to Silence You
In 1996, Congress passed a well-meaning law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to help internet platforms grow. It was supposed to protect online forums from liability for what their users said—not give billion-dollar corporations the right to shadow-ban dissidents, rig elections, and coordinate censorship with the federal government. But thanks to a judicial sleight of hand, Section 230 became the sledgehammer Big Tech used to bludgeon the First Amendment into submission. And now—at long last—the Supreme Court may have a chance to fix it. The case to watch is Fyk v. Facebook, and it might be the most important free speech lawsuit you've never heard of. So, here's The Lie That Broke the Internet: Section 230(c)(1) reads: 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.' Sounds simple, right? Don't sue the platform for what someone else posts. But that's not how the courts interpreted it. They swapped out 'the publisher' for 'a publisher'—a tiny grammatical switch with massive consequences. That misquote gave platforms immunity not just for hosting content—but for what they choose to manipulate, suppress, or delete. This misinterpretation has allowed Big Tech giants to: Throttle political speech they don't like; Deplatform rival voices and competitors; Shadow-ban stories that challenge official narratives, And partner with the government to suppress dissenting opinions—all while claiming immunity. Don't take my word for it—look at the receipts. The 'Twitter Files' revealed that federal agencies actively worked with platforms to suppress content. A federal judge even issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden to stop this unconstitutional collusion. That's not moderation. That's state-sanctioned censorship in a corporate mask. Congress intended Section 230 to protect platforms acting in good faith—hence the name of Section 230(c): 'Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material.' Platforms were supposed to remove truly harmful content—pornography, violence, abuse—not opinions that made their investors uncomfortable or their partners in D.C. nervous. But under the courts' bastardized reading of the law, the 'good faith' clause in Section 230(c)(2) became meaningless. If 230(c)(1) shields all moderation, then what's the point of requiring platforms to act in good faith at all? That's a textbook violation of the surplusage canon—a legal rule that says no part of a statute should be rendered pointless. In short, the courts rewrote the law. And they handed Big Tech the keys to our digital public square. Jason Fyk built a multi-million-dollar business on Facebook. With over 25 million followers, his pages drove massive traffic—until Facebook targeted and deleted his content, allegedly redirecting it to competitors and killing his revenue. When he sued, Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the case under Section 230—claiming Facebook was immune. But here's the kicker: Fyk wasn't suing over what other people said. He was suing over what Facebook did. They didn't just host his content—they manipulated it, redirected it, and destroyed his business. That's not speech. That's sabotage. Fyk's verified complaint included sworn factual allegations. Under standard civil procedure (Rule 12(b)(6)), the court was required to treat those facts as true. Instead, the judge parroted Facebook's false claims—even branding Fyk the 'pee page guy' over a page he didn't even own. This kind of judicial deference to Big Tech is exactly why Fyk's case is headed to the Supreme Court. Let's clear something up: Section 230 is an affirmative defense, not 'sovereign immunity.' That means platforms must prove their actions were lawful—not automatically escape trial. In Barnes v. Yahoo! (2009), the Ninth Circuit confirmed that Section 230 is not a blanket shield. But courts have ignored that precedent and instead created a fantasy world where Big Tech can't be touched—no matter what they do. As Jason Fyk explains in his eye-opening analysis, Section 230 for Dummies, the judiciary has created 'super-immunity' out of thin air. That's not just unconstitutional—it's dangerous. The Supreme Court has a golden opportunity here. If they take Fyk's case, they can: Restore due process by ending early dismissals based on false immunity; Reinstate the 'good faith' requirement for content moderation; Clarify the difference between a neutral host and an active publisher; And return free speech to the people, not the platforms. No new laws are needed. Just correct interpretation of the law we already have. Section 230 was designed to protect speech—not suppress it. It was written to encourage good faith moderation—not corporate censorship on behalf of the federal government. The law isn't broken. The courts broke it. Now it's time they fix it.
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sen. Mike Lee's obscenity bill is a free speech nightmare
A new bill in Congress threatens to dictate what Americans can read, watch and say online. On May 8, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah and Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., introduced the 'Interstate Obscenity Definition Act' (IODA) — a recycled attempt to ban online pornography nationwide. While concerns about pornography, including moral and religious ones, are part of any healthy public debate, this bill does something far more dangerous: It empowers the federal government to police speech based on subjective values. When lawmakers try to enforce the beliefs of some Americans at the expense of others' rights, they cross a constitutional line — and put the First Amendment at risk. The legislation aims to rewrite the legal definition of obscenity, an area of law that represents a very narrow exception to First Amendment protections. The IODA seeks to sidestep the Supreme Court's long-standing three-part test for obscenity, established in the 1973 case Miller v. California. The material must appeal to a prurient interest, depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Lee's bill would scrap that standard and replace it with a broader, far more subjective definition. It would label content obscene if it simply focuses on nudity, sex or excretion in a way that is intended to arouse and if it lacks 'serious value.' By discarding the concept of community standards, the IODA removes a key safeguard that allows local norms to shape what counts as obscenity. Without it, the federal government could impose a single national standard that fails to account for regional differences, cultural context or evolving social values. The bill also deletes the requirement that material be 'patently offensive,' a crucial element that keeps the obscenity test anchored in societal consensus. Instead, it replaces it with a subjective inquiry into whether the work was intended to arouse or titillate. But intent is notoriously difficult to prove and easy to allege. That language could easily sweep in a wide range of protected expression, including art, health information and sex education. In another relevant case, Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court struck down most of the Communications Decency Act for restricting online speech in terms that were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court made clear that the online world is entitled to full First Amendment protection, rejecting analogies to broadcast regulation and insisting that any restriction on speech online must withstand strict constitutional scrutiny. The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act directly undermines this precedent by reviving the same vague, subjective standards that Reno condemned. The consequences we are outlining aren't speculative. We have decades of history showing how vague obscenity laws have been used to suppress speech that governments don't like and the expression of marginalized communities. The Comstock Act of 1873, championed by anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock, was used to suppress a wide range of material from James Joyce's 'Ulysses' to Margaret Sanger's pamphlets on contraception to a Bernard Shaw play to medical books. Under this law, countless people were prosecuted not for distributing pornography, but for challenging prevailing ideas about sexuality, gender and morality. A more recent example was an Indianapolis ordinance that banned sexually explicit material portraying 'the subordination of women.' The ordinance was drafted by the prominent feminists Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. In 1985, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held the ordinance unconstitutional, writing that the state can't mandate preferred viewpoints and that '[a]ny other answer leaves the government in control of all of the institutions of culture, the great censor and director of which thoughts are good for us.' First Amendment protections are their most vital when they shield controversial, uncomfortable expressions. Because the Supreme Court has consistently held that expression may not be banned simply because it offends, shocks or challenges mainstream sensibilities, that principle allowed civil rights movements, reproductive freedom advocates and LGBTQ communities to speak, publish and organize. Moreover, regulating speech on the internet through an obscenity law raises serious concerns about overbreadth and vagueness, two constitutional doctrines that guard against laws that give government too much discretion to censor. When people cannot reasonably predict what is legal and what is not, they self-censor. Other countries show how laws like these are routinely weaponized to silence dissent and censor culture. In India, obscenity laws have been used to censor films, silence political critics and prosecute artists under vague standards that often reflect cultural conservatism more than actual harm. In authoritarian regimes, vague obscenity laws are routinely used to suppress dissent, punish activists and control access to health and educational materials. These examples show how easily obscenity regulation becomes a tool of broader censorship, especially when intent, morality or offense are used as standards. The Canadian experience provides a chilling illustration of how these laws can be weaponized. After Canada implemented an anti-pornography law similar to the Mackinnon-Dworkin model in Butler v. Queen, the consequences were swift and stark. In the first two and a half years following the law's implementation, more than half of feminist bookstores had materials confiscated or detained by customs officials. This decision also led to widespread censorship of women's and LGBTQ literature in Canada. Even if IODA is adopted into law, it will likely be overturned upon review by the judicial branch. But until it works its way through the courts, there will be considerable collateral damage. Laws like this chill speech the moment they are introduced. Libraries may rethink their collections. Publishers may delay or pull content. Platforms may become more cautious about hosting sexual or health-related material. The uncertainty alone can be enough to suppress swaths of protected expression on a scale we haven't seen or experienced in modern times. The introduction of this bill isn't surprising when viewed in the light of Project 2025's policy goal to criminalize and ban pornography. Lee's bill rests on the assumption that long-standing First Amendment precedent goes too far in protecting sexual expression. But in reality, it is precisely because sex and sexuality are so deeply tied to identity, autonomy and social norms that this area of speech needs robust protection. We cannot have a meaningful right to speak if that right disappears the moment we touch on sensitive or controversial topics. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
‘Tesla Takedown' organizers call on Democrats to shield Section 230
Dozens of activists who helped organize protests this year against Elon Musk's company Tesla are calling on Democratic leaders in Congress to drop efforts to repeal Section 230, arguing the statute protects their activism efforts. In a letter sent Thursday to Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.) and other Democratic leaders, 60 activists with the 'Tesla Takedown' movement urged lawmakers to 'leave Section 230 alone.' 'Without this law to protect our online speech and communities from censorship, we would never have been able to coordinate our movement on such a scale,' the letter stated. 'Instead, the social media platforms we used to share information would have deplatformed us, for fear of being sued by Elon Musk or his supporters.' 'Being able to organize online together is a source of our strength and resilience. Don't destroy it,' the letter added. The organizers behind the letter said they coordinated nearly 300 protests against the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla last month as part of the broader demonstration against Musk and his leadership of President Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cost-cutting initiatives. Musk also owns the social media platform X, previously known as Twitter. Durbin and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are expected to soon introduce a bill to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects technology companies from being held legally responsible for third party or user content. The law was passed in 1996, years before the social media boom hit the internet. Advocates of reforming Section 230 have long argued the internet is significantly different than it was in 1996 and the law should be updated to reflect these changes. The protest organizers argued Big Tech companies like Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, would be able to withstand the stripped protections but smaller platforms might not. 'Without the first amendment of the Internet, their competitors like Bluesky and Reddit will either have to bend the knee to the Trump administration and delete people and posts as he sees fit — or else, allow violent threats and intimidation against activists like us to rain down with no repercussions,' the letter stated. The Hill reached out to Durbin's and Graham's offices for comment. Efforts to reform or repeal Section 230 have support from factions on both sides of the aisle, though usually for different reasons. Democrats who support sunsetting Section 230 argue it will hold tech platforms responsible for the harms they allegedly cause users, while some Republicans argue the statute gives social media protection if a person, group or organization claims censorship of certain political views. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
17-04-2025
- Business
- The Hill
‘Tesla Takedown' organizers call on Democrats to shield Section 230
Dozens of activists who helped organize protests this year against Elon Musk's company Tesla are calling on Democratic leaders in Congress to drop efforts to repeal Section 230, arguing the statute protects their activism efforts. In a letter sent Thursday to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and other Democratic leaders, 60 activists with the 'Tesla Takedown' movement urged lawmakers to 'leave Section 230 alone.' 'Without this law to protect our online speech and communities from censorship, we would never have been able to coordinate our movement on such a scale,' the letter stated. 'Instead, the social media platforms we used to share information would have deplatformed us, for fear of being sued by Elon Musk or his supporters.' 'Being able to organize online together is a source of our strength and resilience. Don't destroy it,' the letter added. The organizers behind the letter said they coordinated nearly 300 protests against the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla last month as part of the broader demonstration against Musk and his leadership of President Trump's 'Department of Government Efficiency' (DOGE) cost-cutting initiatives. Musk also owns the social media platform X, previously known as Twitter. Durbin, alongside Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are expected to soon introduce a bill to sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects technology companies from being held legally responsible for third party or user consent. The law was passed in 1996, years before the social media boom hit the internet. Advocates of reforming Section 230 have long argued the internet is significantly different than it was in 1996 and the law should be updated to reflect these changes. The protest organizers argued 'Big Tech' companies like Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, would be able to withstand the stripped protections but smaller platforms might not. 'Without the first amendment of the Internet, their competitors like Bluesky and Reddit will either have to bend the knee to the Trump administration and delete people and posts as he sees fit — or else, allow violent threats and intimidation against activists like us to rain down with no repercussions,' the letter stated. The Hill reached out to Durbin and Graham's office for comment. Efforts to reform or repeal Section 230 have support from factions on both sides of the aisle, though usually for different reasons. Democrats who support sunsetting Section 230 argue it will hold tech platforms responsible for the harms they allegedly cause users, while some Republicans argue the statute gives social media protection if a person, group or organization claims censorship of certain political views.
Yahoo
15-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Fewer Americans want government, tech companies restricting false content online: Poll
Support for the U.S. government or technology companies' attempts to restrict false information online dropped slightly among Americans over the past two years, according to a new poll. According to a survey released by Pew Research Center on Monday, about 51 percent of surveyed Americans believe the U.S. should take steps to restrict false information online, regardless of whether it limits freedom of information. This is a slight dip from 2023, when about 55 percent of surveyed Americans said the same. The percentage of Americans who believe tech companies should restrict false information online also dropped from 65 percent in 2023 to 60 percent now. Meanwhile, the share of Americans who believe the government or tech companies should protect the freedom of information regardless of whether false information is published increased over the past two years, the poll found. About 47 percent of surveyed Americans said the U.S. government should protect this freedom of information, up from 42 percent in 2023, while 38 percent said the same of tech companies, increasing from 32 percent in 2023. An even lower share of Americans supports government or tech companies taking down or restricting violent content online. About 52 percent of surveyed Americans said the U.S. government should take steps to restrict extremely violent content online, down 8 points from 2023, while 58 percent said the same of tech companies, down from 71 percent in 2023. The findings come amid a larger debate over how much authority the government or social media companies should have over the content shared online. The fight against Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is expected to ramp up again in Congress as Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) prepare to introduce legislation to sunset the long-contested statute. Section 230, often dubbed as the 26 words that created the internet, largely protects tech firms from being held legally responsible for third-party or user content. Democrats who support sunsetting Section 230 argue it will hold tech platforms responsible for the harms they allegedly cause users, while some Republicans argue the statute gives social media protection if a person, group or organization claims censorship of certain political views. Some GOP lawmakers and Trump administration officials are also separately investigating the Biden administration's communications with major technology companies and whether it played a role in getting certain posts taken down. Meta sparked conversation over the debate at the beginning of this year, when founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the Facebook parent company would eliminate its fact-checking system and loosen some hate speech rules. Zuckerberg framed the decision as a return to the company's 'roots' in an embrace of free speech. Meta replaced the fact-checking system with crowdsourced community notes, much like the system used on Elon Musk's social platform X. The system relies on users submitting suggested notes that add context or correct false information on potentially misleading posts. The Pew Research Center poll surveyed 5,123 U.S. adults from February 24 to March 2 this year. The margin of error is 1.5 percentage points. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
