That the pandemic showed "we can't imagine a future" with Americans lacking a connection is no reason to regulate broadband service as a utility, USTelecom CEO Jonathan Spalter told C-SPAN's The Communicators scheduled to have been televised this weekend. "To wrap it in the red tape of regulatory strictures, the overhang of bureaucracy that would be required if we were to make it a utility, would take us backward." He's "confident a wise administration that believes in the future of progress in our internet will understand this framework and will continue it." He has seen bipartisan support for keeping the internet open and transparent and for closing the digital divide, and cited predictions it could take $100 billion in government support to extend broadband to all unserved areas. That's adequate, he said, in the context of a broader U.S. infrastructure investment that may approach $1 trillion. Asked about the debate over changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Spalter said: "The issues concerning content moderation are complex and thorny. It’s not our job, it’s not our business, and we’ll be watching with interest as these discussions take place."
Section 230
The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the Earn It Act (S-3398) (see 2007010058) Thursday. A manager’s amendment from Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and another amendment from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., passed.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to consider a significant amendment to the Earn It Act (S-3398) from Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., at Thursday’s markup (see 2006290056). According to a committee aide, Graham intends to introduce a manager’s amendment with Blumenthal that would remove the tech industry’s blanket immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from federal civil, state criminal and state civil child sexual abuse material (CSAM) laws: “Service providers will now be treated like everyone else when it comes to combating child sexual exploitation and eradicating CSAM.” The amendment would task a government-backed commission with developing voluntary best practices rather than approving best practices required for certification, as originally drafted. “By allowing any individual state to set laws for internet content, this bill will create massive uncertainty, both for strong encryption and free speech online,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Wyden’s bill would direct $5 billion for investigations and resources about online child abuse. Offices for Graham and Blumenthal didn't comment. Internet Association Senior Director-Federal Government Affairs Mike Lemon welcomed recognition of Fourth Amendment concerns raised against the original bill. He said the amendment, however, would replace one set of problems with another. It would open the “door to an unpredictable and inconsistent set of standards under state laws that pose many of the same risks to strong encryption,” Lemon said. As Section 230 “does not apply to federal criminal law, these proposals, including a government-backed Internet regulatory commission, can only undermine the ongoing fight against CSAM,” said Computer & Communications Industry Association President Matt Schruers. The bill “makes it possible for one state to undermine encryption nationwide,” said NetChoice Vice President Carl Szabo. The tech industry shouldn’t be immune from lawsuits, whether at the state or federal level, when it’s responsible for injuring people including children, said National Center on Sexual Exploitation General Counsel Benjamin Bull. He said that either industry will self-correct, or the federal government will expose it to litigation. CSAM is illegal under federal law, despite Section 230, emailed Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Vice President Daniel Castro. “Why are some members of Congress so aggressively pursuing this new law? By most accounts, it appears to be because this law can be used to undercut encryption.”
It’s unlikely Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., could offer an amendment to keep the Earn It Act from undermining encryption for millions of Americans, encryption advocates said in interviews about Thursday’s Senate Judiciary Committee markup (see 2006250067). A victims advocate urged the committee to advance the bill, contending government action is the only way to get Big Tech to respond to rampant child exploitation.
The Internet Association backed legislation Friday to block federal funds from being used to carry out President Donald Trump’s social media-related executive order (see 2006020071). Rep. Norma Torres, D-Calif., introduced the Defund Executive Orders that Suppress Free Speech Act (HR-7300) Monday. The EO “risks undermining the careful balance” struck with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the “important content moderation efforts IA members engage in every day for the benefit of their users,” said IA interim CEO Jon Berroya.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told us he wants to debate encryption and Communications Decency Act Section 230 separately. But Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told us he may seek to clarify at the July 2 markup how their Earn It Act affects encryption (see 2006230006). “I’m going to wait till the markup to determine exactly what amendments are necessary, but I think the impact of the bill on encryption has been way exaggerated and distorted, so if we can clarify it, we may do it,” Blumenthal said.
The Senate Commerce Committee’s divide over FCC approval of Ligado’s L-band plan was again on display Wednesday during a commission oversight hearing, as expected (see 2006230059). The issue also came up during a committee confirmation hearing for Commissioner Mike O'Rielly (see 2006160062). There was an even clearer partisan divide among committee members about President Donald Trump’s May executive order directing NTIA to petition the FCC for regulations defining the scope of Communications Decency Act Section 230 (see 2005280060). Senate Commerce also drilled into broadband funding proposals amid the ongoing push to include money in future COVID-19 aid legislation.
Senate Majority Whip John Thune, R-S.D., and Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, introduced legislation Wednesday that would alter Section 230 and repeal tech industry immunity from civil action brought by federal agencies, as expected (2006160059). The Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act would exempt enforcement of federal civil laws from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, so “online platforms cannot use it as a defense when federal regulators,” like the FTC and DOJ, “pursue civil actions for online activity.” The bill would amend Section 230 and require “large online platforms to remove court-determined illegal content and activity within 24 hours.” Thune and Schatz touted the bill’s attempt to increase transparency about content moderation. The bill would require “large online platforms to provide process protections to consumers by having a defined complaint system that processes reports and notifies users of moderation decisions within 14 days, and allows consumers to appeal.”
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act needs recalibration because Big Tech isn’t doing enough to combat disinformation, House Commerce Committee Democrats said Wednesday. Republicans suggested platforms provide more transparency about content moderation decisions, citing political bias. It was a hearing (see 2006110064) of the Communications and Consumer Protection subcommittees.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (Earn It) Act Thursday (see 2006190055), the panel announced Monday. Based on customary committee practice, agenda items are generally held over a week, according to a committee spokesperson. S-3398 would alter Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, exposing online platforms to civil liability for violating child sexual abuse material-related laws.