U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said Friday he planned to introduce a bipartisan bill repeal of Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act. “The law prevents most civil lawsuits against users or services based on what others say,” explains an EFF blog post. “Experts argue that a repeal of Section 230 could destroy free speech on the internet,” writes LiveMint – although the last two US presidents both supported a crop:
During his first presidency, US President Donald Trump called for the law to be repealed and signed an executive order seeking to curb some of its protections, although this was challenged in court. Subsequently, former President Joe Biden also expressed his opinion against the law.
A EFF blog post explains the case for section 230:
Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more users’ online speech outweighed the potential harm. When harmful speech occurs, the speaker should be held responsible, not the agency organizing the speech… Without Section 230, the internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, especially on controversial topics. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet and control the opinions of platforms and users. If the law made us liable for the speech of others, the largest platforms would likely be locked down and heavily censored. The following great websites and apps won’t even get started because they face overwhelming legal risks if they host users’ speech.
But “I am confident that Section 230 has long outlived its use,” said Senator Whitehouse said this weeksaying that Section 230 is “a veritable vessel for evil that must end.”
“The laws that Section 230 protects these large platforms from are often laws that date back to the common law of England, which we inherited when this country was initially founded. I mean, these are long-standing, well-tested, important legal restrictions that – they’ve stood the test of time, not by year or by decade, but by century.
“And yet, because of this crazy Section 230, these age-old and highly respected doctrines aren’t reaching these people. And it really doesn’t make sense that if you’re an internet platform, you’re treated one way; if you’re doing the exact same thing and as a publisher, you’re treated a completely different way.
“And so I think the time has come… It really doesn’t make sense… [Testimony before the committee] shows how lonely and stranded people are when they don’t even get a chance to get justice. It’s bad enough to have to live through the tragedy… But under a law of Congress, you can’t get justice because of the platform – not because the law is wrong, not because the rule is wrong, not because this is something new – simply because the wrong type of entity caused this harm.
#Repeal #Section #platform #protections #urges #bipartisan #bill #Slashdot