Prominent Republicans are aiming for Silicon Valley’s most prized legal shield as they escalate their accusations that Big Tech is biased against conservatives. The tech industry is growing concerned about recent proposals Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Donald Trump Jr. floated to change Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This decades-old legal provision protects tech platforms from liability for content posted on them. Hawley says the law has also allowed companies to make editorial decisions about who can post on their sites—with no recourse for objectors.
Hawley is pushing a change to Section 230 to prevent “viewpoint discrimination,” which would bar tech companies from moderating content based on political ideology (something they already fiercely deny doing.) Donald Trump Jr. specifically called out Hawley’s support for such a requirement in an op-ed slamming the tech giants that President Donald Trump promoted on Twitter. Conservatives have long criticized tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter for anti-conservative bias (see Rep. Devin Nunes’s recent Twitter lawsuit). However, industry leaders deny that such a practice has ever taken place.
“It’s a really sweet deal,” Hawley said in an interview with The Verge published this week, referring to the lack of responsibility born by tech companies for their content. “I think we need to consider what reforms need to be made there to prevent viewpoint discrimination.”
Tech industry lobbyists warn Hthat awley’s proposal betrays a “fundamental misunderstanding” of how the law works and are worried athat any change could chillfree speech online. They say it also could leave start-ups vulnerable to costly lawsuits and further consolidate the power of large technology companies , whichhave more legal resources.
Section 230 also protects companies from lawsuits for any action they take to restrict obscene, excessively violent, or harassing content — a key issue as companies are increasingly under pressure to crack down on violent content or disinformation in the wake of incidents like the New Zealand mosque shooting.
“This law enables the companies to be Good Samaritans and police the platforms,” said Michael Beckerman, the president and chief executive of the Internet Association, a trade group representing companies like Google and Facebook. “What some people ask for makes you scratch your head slightly.”
However, conservatives are framing the resurrected debate about how to police content on the Internet with their concerns about what they see as politically biased moderation of information disseminated on big platforms like Google, Facebook, and YouTube.
Hawley told The Verge it’s time to consider reforms to Section 230 to ensure technology companies can’t “exert editorial control” over political ideology they disagree with. He said he’s not talking about speech that advocates crime. When asked if such a change would result in more government censorship, the Missouri Republican said the top platforms “are engaging in censorship now.”
“People say, ‘Well, where would you draw the line?’ First Amendment law has drawn this line for a long time.” Hawley said. “The law has developed the difference between speech that is illegal, and therefore protected, and viewpoint speech.”
Hawley, a freshman senator quickly becoming one of the tech industry’s top conservative critics, has criticized Section 230 for months. He was unavailable for an interview for this piece.
Hawley’s comments were published as President Trump renewed allegations that the technology industry discriminates against conservatives. Industry heads have repeatedly denied anti-conservative bias on their platforms. However, other conservatives may not support Hawley’s proposal. It could be particularly tough to sell among Republicans who favor deregulation and a government approach to the industry.
Jesse Blumenthal, who leads technology and innovation across the Koch network, said the charges that the tech industry is biased against conservatives are “politically motivated nonsense.” He warned that Section 230 already strikes the right balance.
“Politicizing content moderation decisions is really dangerous because it puts politicians in charge of speech issues,” Blumenthal said.
Blumenthal warned that changing Section 230 contradicts conservative values, comparing it to “creating a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.” That doctrine required broadcasters airing programs on politics to include opposing views on those issues. A 1987 decision to revoke the doctrine is credited with the explosion in conservative talk radio.
Tech industry advocates said that the fact conservatives use tech platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to disseminate bias accusations proves the platforms aren’t systematically biased against them. Earlier this week, President Trump tweeted that Twitter, as well as Google and Facebook, were on the “side of the Radical Left Democrats.”
An advocate for technology start-ups pointed out conservatives should be aware that changes to Section 230 would only make it harder to create new social networks as an alternative.
“If you think there are not enough pathways for certain speech to get out, you can create them,” said Evan Engstrom, the executive director of start-up advocacy organization Engine. “The idea that the Internet has limited ability of conservative voices to get to their audience is preposterous.”
