U. S. rep wants changes to internet speech law; calls White House measures ‘ reckless,’ ‘ politically motivated’
Doyle decries White House’s reforms
WASHINGTON — Rep. Mike Doyle, D- Forest Hills, suggested on Monday the Trump administration’s push to reform the foundational 24year- old internet speech law was a “reckless and politically motivated stunt” that seeks to influence social media companies’ behavior ahead of Election Day.
Mr. Doyle, who heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s panel overseeing telecom issues, has long sought to reform the law himself as a way to stem the spread of fake news and hate speech. But he has disagreed with the administration’s motivations — namely, that conservative viewpoints are being censored online.
On Monday, Mr. Doyle doubled down on those complaints in a scathing statement with Rep. Frank Pallone, D- N. J., chair of the House committee. The lawmakers responded to the Federal Communications Commission’s announcement last Friday that it would open the rule- making process on the law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The 26- word statute, known simply as Section 230, provides broad legal immunity to publishers of usergenerated content while also encouraging those publishers to moderate discussions and develop systems to flag inappropriate or illegal activity.
Practically, it has allowed social media giants to flourish by granting them a liability shield for user- generated content. Such companies were conduits, like newsstands or libraries, that could not be sued for illegal content. By contrast, publishers like newspapers, which exercise editorial control, are subject to lawsuits for their content.
In a statement, FCC Chair Ajit Pai said the law was in serious need of an update. He pointed to the bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill and cited a statement last week from U. S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas that criticized courts for granting “sweeping protections to
internet platforms” that appear to go far beyond the actual text of the provision.
“What does Section 230 currently mean?” Mr. Pai wrote. “Many advance an overly broad interpretation that in some cases shields social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text of Section 230.
“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech,” Mr. Pai wrote. “But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.”
The FCC’s rule- making comes after debate over Section 230 has been simmering in Washington for several months.
Democrats have targeted the law for protecting social media companies that allow the spread of disinformation, hate speech and cyberbullying. In October 2019, Mr. Doyle convened a hearing in which he invoked the one- year anniversary of the Tree of Life massacre, a shooting perpetrated by a person who shared his motivations — and sought validation — on an online platform.
In June, he held another hearing — titled “A Country in Crisis: How Disinformation Online Is Dividing the Nation” — that promised to address the proliferation of algorithms that reward companies with profits while promoting incendiary content.
“We said: ‘ Either police yourself, or you’re going to bring regulation upon yourself from us, and you’re not going to like it,’” Mr. Doyle said in an interview in July.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump ordered a review of the law this spring after Twitter began flagging some of his tweets as harmful content that violated community standards. Twitter attached the label of “glorifying violence” to the president’s message that
“when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” directed to the protests that erupted after the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, R- Peters, has called for companies to be open to lawsuits for flagging content from conservatives. Last week, he told Sean Spicer, the former White House press secretary turned NewsMax host, he was blocked from sharing a story about Hunter Biden “by the social media oligarchs and big tech tyrants.”
Mr. Reschenthaler speculated Twitter and Facebook had limited his reach in other ways, too.
“My own social media team thinks that I’ve been throttled back, meaning my tweets, my Facebook posts are not having the reach they used to have,” he told Mr. Spicer, then posted a video of the interview to YouTube with the title “Big Tech Is Meddling In Our Election.”
Mr. Doyle has rejected that social media companies are targeting conservative viewpoints for political reasons. He has supported Twitter’s actions to flag the president’s tweets, which he said fan the flames of disinformation.
“Republicans have used the Section 230 debate to threaten social media companies when they remove or flag disinformation and extremism on their platforms — all because of some baseless fantasy grievance that the internet is biased against conservative views,” Mr. Doyle and Mr. Pallone stated on Monday.
“Section 230 reform that creates a structure for healthier online ecosystems is needed, and we are committed to seeing it done,” the lawmakers added. “But the FCC’s rush to push President Trump’s agenda weeks before Election Day should be seen for the reckless and politically motivated stunt that it is.”