Three Senate Republicans introduced a new bill aiming to narrow the scope of Section 230, modifying platforms' protections through more restrictive language
This bill is the legislative escalation of a summer of GOP pressure on Section 230: in June, four Republican senators asked the FCC to review the statute and clearly define which companies qualify for its protections. Now Wicker, Graham and Blackburn are bypassing the agency and going straight at the text itself, using more restrictive language to narrow what platforms can claim.
The move lands in a widening pincer. Two weeks later the DOJ would ask Congress for its own law weakening Section 230 to hold Facebook and Google liable for content, and by early 2021 Senate Democrats would counter with the [[a:962840|SAFE TECH Act, stripping immunity for ads and posts violating civil rights, antitrust and other laws]] — meaning the statute now faces simultaneous reform vehicles from both parties.
First-order effects
Facebook, Google and other covered platforms immediately face a second front of legal exposure: alongside the FCC review request, a Senate bill now proposes rewriting the statute's protective language rather than merely reinterpreting it.
Second-order effects
The DOJ's legislative proposal and the Democrats' SAFE TECH Act turn this from a partisan jab into a bidding war over which carve-outs to immunity get enacted — forcing platforms to lobby against multiple, competing reform texts at once rather than a single bill.
The trend: Section 230 is shifting from settled, near-absolute platform immunity to a contested statute that both parties now compete to narrow, carve up, or sunset.
Why does Twitter leave phony pictures like this up, but take down Republican/Conservative pictures and statements that are true? Mitch must fight back and repeal Section 230, immediately. Stop biased Big Tech before they stop you! @HawleyMO @MarshaBlackburn https://twitter.com/..…
For too long, social media platforms have hidden behind Section 230 protections to censor content that deviates from their beliefs. These practices should not receive special protections in our society where freedom of speech is at the core of our nation's values. https://twitter…
Totally agree, @realdonaldtrump. For too long, Big Tech has cloaked themselves in the protection of the First Amendment while using their platforms to censor and suppress conservative speech. I've got a bill to address that: https://thefederalist.com/... https://twitter.com/...
The bill also redefines “content provider” to add editorializing / modifying content created by someone else. Does that make fact-checking and adding warnings, as Twitter + Facebook have recently done to Trump's threats, as liable as a publisher? 8/11 https://thehill.com/...
Glad to see my colleagues joining the effort to end Section 230 immunity for political censorship. The coalition continues to expand. I hope more members join! #BigTech #Section230 https://twitter.com/...
Big Tech companies have stretched their liability shield past its limits, and the national discourse now suffers because of it. @SenatorWicker @LindseyGrahamSC https://twitter.com/...
This is the legislative version of the NTIA proposal. We wrote why this kind of “must carry” scheme for racists, charlatans, and trolls is terrible policy: https://www.freepress.net/... Is it directly inimical to the project of promoting speech and a diversity of views online. ht…
(Some) Senate Republicans are out with a new Section 230 bill. Still digging in, but it looks like a pretty aggressive overhaul. No Dems listed as cosponsors, and Majority Whip John Thune - who already has his own 230 bill - is also conspicuously absent. https://www.commerce.sena…