Justice Dept. Urges Congress to Limit Tech’s Legal Shield

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department despatched Congress draft laws on Wednesday that would scale back a authorized defend for platforms like Facebook and YouTube, within the newest effort by the Trump administration to revisit the regulation because the president claims these firms are slanted in opposition to conservative voices.

The authentic regulation, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, makes it tough to sue on-line platforms over the content material they host or the way in which they average it. Under the proposed adjustments, expertise platforms that purposely facilitate “harmful criminal activity” wouldn’t obtain the protections, the division stated. Platforms that enable “known criminal content” to keep up as soon as they realize it exists would lose the protections for that content material.

Attorney General William P. Barr, in a press release, urged lawmakers to “begin to hold online platforms accountable both when they unlawfully censor speech and when they knowingly facilitate egregious criminal activity online.” (While they’re shielded from some civil lawsuits, on-line providers usually are not shielded from federal legal legal responsibility by Section 230.)

President Trump and his allies have made criticism of main tech platforms a daily speaking level in his marketing campaign for re-election, attacking the companies over anecdotal examples of the removing of conservative content material from on-line platforms. The firms have denied that political bias performs a task in eradicating posts, photographs and movies.

But there is a growing group of critics who say Section 230 has allowed Silicon Valley to get away with taking a dangerous hands-off approach to social media. Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee, has said it should be “revoked.” Lawmakers from both parties have introduced measures that would modify the protections, though none have gained real traction in Congress.

In 2018, Congress modified Section 230 so that the protections did not cover platforms that knowingly facilitated sex trafficking. Proponents of that change say it tamped down trafficking online. But critics say the change made it harder for sex workers to safely vet potential clients, putting them at greater risk.

Online platforms and their representatives in Washington say Section 230 has played a vital role in allowing free speech to flourish online and has been integral to Silicon Valley’s rapid growth. Without the protections, they say, it would be impossible to sustain the scale of the internet economy. They also point to Section 230’s protections for how content is moderated to argue that the law is what allows them to police their platforms.

“This is not about stopping crimes; it’s about advancing political interests,” said Carl Szabo, the vice president of NetChoice, a trade group that represents Google and Facebook. “We’re essentially turning over to the courts an incredible amount of power to decide what is and is not appropriate for people who go on the internet.”

The conservative attacks on Section 230 stem from complaints that platforms like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter skew against conservative content. Mr. Trump has chafed at instances when Twitter has labeled his tweets as possibly misleading, for example.

But despite the accusations of censorship on the right, conservative publications and figures regularly dominate the rankings of high-performing posts on Facebook and have built dedicated followings on video platforms like YouTube.

In late May, not long after Twitter fact-checked his tweets for the first time, Mr. Trump signed an executive order that asked the Commerce Department to petition the Federal Communications Commission to limit the scope of Section 230. A couple of months later, the Commerce Department submitted its petition, asking the F.C.C. to find that a platform is not protected when it moderates or highlights user content based on a “reasonably discernible viewpoint or message, without having been prompted to, asked to or searched for by the user.”

It is unclear what the F.C.C., which is an independent regulator, will do with the petition. Brian Hart, a spokesman for the F.C.C., said he had no update on the status of the petition.

Source link Nytimes.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *