Do Not Expect Section 230 And The 1st Amendment To Save Antitrust Bills From Abuse – Techdirt
from the fix-the-damn-bill dept
Over the last few weeks, weve written quite a bit about the American Innovation and Choice Online Act (AICOA), which has become the central push by a bunch of folks in Congress to create a special antitrust bill for big tech. There are some good ideas in the bill, but, as weve been highlighting, a major problem is that the language in the bill is such that it could be abused by politically motivated politicians and law enforcement to go after perfectly reasonable content moderation decisions.
Indeed, Republicans have made it clear that they very much believe this bill will enable them to go after tech companies over content moderation decisions they dislike. Most recently, theyve said that if the bill is clarified to say that it should not impact content moderation, that they will walk away from supporting the bill. That should, at the very least, give pause to everyone who keeps insisting that the bill cant be abused to go after content moderation decisions.
We recently wrote about four Senators, led by Brian Schatz (with Ron Wyden, Tammy Baldwin, and Ben Ray Lujan), suggesting a very, very slight amendment to the bill, which would just make it explicit that the law shouldnt be read to impact regular content moderation decisions.
In response to that Schatz letter, Rep. David Cicilline (who is spearheading the House version of the bill, while Senator Amy Klobuchar is handling the Senate side), sent back a letter insisting that Section 230 and the 1st Amendment already would prevent AICOA from being abused this way. Heres a snippet of his letter.
Moreover, even if a covered platforms discriminatory application of its terms of servicematerially harmed competition, the Act preserves platforms content-moderation-relateddefenses under current law. Section 5 of S. 2992 states expressly that [n]othing in this Act maybe construed to limit ... the application of any law.
One such law is Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act. Under thatprovision, social-media platforms may not be treated as the publisher or speaker of anyinformation provided by another information content provider. They also may not be heldcivilly liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to oravailability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material isconstitutionally protected. Accordingly, as with other liability statutes enacted since thepassage of Section 230, Section 230 provides an affirmative defense to liability under [the Act]for ... the narrow set of defendants and conduct to which Section 230 applies. Another stillapplicable law is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which the Act does notandindeed, cannotabrogate.
He then goes on in more detail as to why he believes the bill really cannot be abused. And while he does note that that he remains committed to doing what is necessary to strengthen and improve the bill and that he is happy to keep working with these Senators on it, the very clear message from his letter is that hes pretty sure the bill is just fine as is, and that Section 230 and the 1st Amendment already protect against abuse.
Finally, your proposed language for the Actalthough well intentionedis alreadyreflected in the base text of the bill. As detailed above, among other things, section 5 of S. 2992preserves the continued applicability of current laws, including 47 U.S.C. 230(c), that protectsocial-media platforms from liability for good-faith content moderation. Although I agree thatlegislation is necessary to address concerns with misinformation and content-moderationpractices by dominant social-media platforms, I have consistently said that this legislation is notthe avenue for doing so. As such, this legislation is narrowly tailored to address specificanticompetitive practices by dominant technology firms online. And as the Department of Justicehas noted, it is a complement to and clarification of the antitrust laws as they apply to digitalmarkets. As such, it does not supersede other laws.
Except Cicilline is wrong. Very wrong. We at the Copia Institute this week signed onto a letter from TechFreedom and Free Press (two organizations that rarely agree with each other on policy issues) along with some expert academics explaining why.
The letter explains why Cicillines faith in Section 230 and the 1st Amendment is misplaced. It walks through, step by step, ways in which motivated state AGs (or even the DOJ) might get around those concerns, by claiming that moderation decisions were not actually content-based decisions, but business conduct, focused on anti-competitive behavior.
We dont have to look far to see how that played out: the Malwarebytes case was an example of that in action. That was a case where a company was able to avoid Section 230 by claiming that a moderation decision (calling an app malware), was actually done for anti-competitive reasons. But with AICOA, we could get that on steroids. As the letter notes:
There is a substantial risk that courts will extend the Malwarebytes reasoning to exclude AICOA claims from Section 230 protectionincluding politically motivated claims aimed at content moderation. Specifically, courts may try to harmonize the two statutesi.e., strive to give effect to bothby accepting some showing of anticompetitive results as sufficient to circumvent Section 230(c)(2)(A) in non-discrimination claims.
Anticompetitive animus is not required by the plain text of AICOA 3(a)(3). Allowing only AICOA claims that allege (and, ultimately, prove) anticompetitive motivation to bypass Section 230s protection would infer an intent requirement where Congress chose not to include one. While courts do sometimes infer intent requirements, they may reasonably conclude that doing so here would effectively read Section 3(a)(3) out of the statute. How could a platform with no direct stake in the market where competitive harm is alleged ever have an anticompetitive intent? Thus, how could any plaintiff ever bring a Section 3(a)(3) claim regarding harm to competition between downstream business users that would survive Section 230(c)(2)(A)? For Rep. Cicillines presumptions about Section 230 to be correct, courts would have to effectively render Section 3(a)(3) a nullity by holding that only claims of self-preferencingbut not discrimination between other business usersare actionable. This is an implausible reading that clearly contradicts what the present draft of AICOA says.
The Malwarebytes court relied heavily on Section 230s history and purpose as evincing Congressional intent to protect competition. Here, there is explicit statutory language and legislative history from which a court could conclude that AICOAs purpose is to prohibit anticompetitive results, regardless of motiveand thus to carve those claims out from Section 230. This result would apparently be statutorily required if another bill co-sponsored by Sen. Klobuchar becomes law: The SAFE TECH Act (S. 299) would amend Section 230 to exempt any action brought under Federal or State antitrust law.
Theres a lot more in the letter, but the point is clear. The idea that 230 will magically stop the abuse of this bill seems contradicted by the way the law is currently drafted, and actual cases on the books.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, aicoa, amy klobuchar, ben ray lujan, brian schatz, content moderation, david cicilline, ron wyden, section 230, tammy baldwin
See original here:
Do Not Expect Section 230 And The 1st Amendment To Save Antitrust Bills From Abuse - Techdirt
- South Bend Stops YouTubers Bid to Revive First Amendment Claim - Bloomberg Law News - May 17th, 2025 [May 17th, 2025]
- Trump Administration Likely Violated American Bar Association's First Amendment Rights - Reason Magazine - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- Perkins Coie Litigation Team Secures First Amendment Federal Court Win for DEF CON - Perkins Coie - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- How swiftly power can be weaponized against dissenting voicesincluding the free and open press as protected by the First Amendment - Northeast Valley... - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- NYUs First Amendment Watch Launches Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment - NYU - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- CCIA Files Amicus Brief Defending the First Amendment Rights of Email Service Providers - CCIA - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Zick on executive orders and official orthodoxies First Amendment News 469 - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Why Journalists Must Band Together to Defend the First Amendment - PEN America - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Youngkin vetoes Confederate tax break roll back, but First Amendment scholar says that might be best - WHRO - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Baxter County facing $102,757 payment after losing eight-year First Amendment lawsuit - Mountain Home Observer - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- DOJ to investigate this new Washington law for first amendment violations - KGW - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Judge orders Tufts scholar Rumeysa Ozturk released from ICE detention after serious First Amendment and due process questions - MSN - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- The First Amendment and the Trump Administration's Anti-DEI Executive Orders - Reason Magazine - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Here Is Why Harvard Argues That Trump's Funding Freeze Violates the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Thankfully, Larry David mocks Bill Maher First Amendment News 467 - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- No, Gov. Lombardo, nobody was being paid to exercise First Amendment rights - Reno Gazette Journal - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Letter from the Editor: The First Amendment shaped my time on the Hill - WKUHerald.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Analysis: Pro-Hamas speech is protected by the First Amendment - Free Speech Center - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Who Will Fight for the First Amendment? Protecting Free Expression at a Critical Time - - Center for Democracy and Technology - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- What the Doxxing of Student Activists Means For the First Amendment - The Progressive - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Does Gov. Landrys bid to restrict attorney advertising violate the First Amendment? - Baton Rouge Business Report - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Harvard invokes First Amendment in US lawsuit over academic control - Times of India - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Fun with the First Amendment: Why Sarah Palins lawyers are happy, and why Deborah Lipstadt isnt - Media Nation - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Is Being Rewritten in Real Time - Rewire News Group - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Criminalizing the Assertion of First Amendment Rights - Law.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Massachusetts First Amendment case: Harmony Montgomerys custody hearing audio to be released - Boston Herald - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Harvard, Trump and the First Amendment: Will Others Follow Suit? - Law.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Executive Watch: The breadth and depth of the Trump administrations threat to the First Amendment First Amendment News 465 - FIRE | Foundation for... - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Rising Wave of Funders and PSOs Stand Up for the First Amendment Freedom to Give - Inside Philanthropy - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Clear commands of First Amendment precedent: Trump-appointed judge rejects government motion to stay court order allowing Associated Press back into... - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Distinguished lecture series on First Amendment at URI adds Visiting Professors of Practice Rhody Today - The University of Rhode Island - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Everything starts with a voice: Understanding the First Amendment - The Tack Online - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- This is an all-out war on the First Amendment - mronline.org - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- The lost right in the first amendment - The Tack Online - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Zero-tolerance laws on Tennessee school shooting threats raise First Amendment worries - The Tennessean - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Federal Judge Orders White House to Restore Access to AP, Citing First Amendment - Democracy Now! - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Does the First Amendment apply to the students in Texas who had their visas revoked? - Fort Worth Star-Telegram - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Guest Column: Detention of Tufts Student a Brazen Attack on the First Amendment - The Bedford Citizen - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- KU students protest for First Amendment rights - The Washburn Review - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Trackergate: The First Amendment Fights Back as Schieve and Hartung Face the Music - Nevada Globe - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- A friend's wedding, the First Amendment - Delta Democrat-Times - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Judge rules against White House in AP's First Amendment case - newscentermaine.com - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- UMass Amherst library hosts webinar on the First Amendment and book banning - Massachusetts Daily Collegian - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Kansas Statehouse clownery has torn First Amendment to shreds. Who will tape it back together? - Kansas Reflector - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Is Mahmoud Khalil protected by the First Amendment? - CNN - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- D.C. Media's Gridiron Dinner Features A Toast To The First Amendment --- And Not To The President - Deadline - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Mayors Threat to Close Miami Cinema Over No Other Land Screening Condemned by Film Groups as First Amendment Violation - Yahoo - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- TSA Screeners' Union Sues the Trump Administration for Violating Its First Amendment Rights - Reason - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Kevin McCabe: Why defending the First Amendment means protecting the Second - Must Read Alaska - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Murder the Truth explores the campaign against the First Amendment - The Washington Post - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- The Trump-Musk Administration Is Running Out of Ways to Ignore the First Amendment - Balls & Strikes - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- From Gods to Google: DU Law Professor Sounds Alarm Over First Amendment and Technology Regulation - University of Denver Newsroom - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Intimidating abridgments and political stunts First Amendment News 461 - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Opinion | The Khalil case is a threat to First Amendment rights - The Washington Post - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Fallout from campus protests sparks debate on limits of the First Amendment - Spectrum News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Troy Carico: Stabbing the First Amendment in the back in Alabama | - 1819 News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Donald Trump Is Tearing Up The First Amendment - HuffPost - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Sorry Mahmoud Khalil, Aliens Do Not Have the Same First Amendment Rights as American Citizens - Immigration Blog - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- BREAKING: Bill Nye to headline annual Loyolan First Amendment Week - Los Angeles Loyolan - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Spokane and Bonner county sheriff's offices can no longer hide or delete critical Facebook comments after First Amendment concerns, judges rule - The... - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Paula Rigano: Last time I checked, the First Amendment still stood - GazetteNET - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Trump is using antisemitism as a pretext for a war on the first amendment | Judith Levine - The Guardian - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Professor Can Continue with First Amendment Claim Over Denial of Raise for Including Expurgated Slurs on Exam - Reason - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Free Mahmoud Khalil and protect students exercising their First Amendment rights! - MoveOn's petitions - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Guy Ciarrocchi: The lesson from Covid the experts hate our First Amendment - Broad + Liberty - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Trump Administration Faces Growing Backlash Over First Amendment Concerns and Threats to Free Speech - Arise News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- The Lobby, Mahmoud Khalil & the First Amendment - Consortium News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Expressive Discrimination: Universities' First Amendment Right to Affirmative Action Part 2 - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Inside Israel's Plan To Resume the War and 'Eradicate Hamas.' Plus, Trump's Press Pool Takeover Is Not an Assault on the First Amendment. - Washington... - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Expressive Discrimination: Universities' First Amendment Right to Affirmative Action - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- OPINION: Attacking the First Amendment and America's free press - Midland Daily News - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Press pool takeover drowns First Amendment - Freedom of the Press Foundation - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- First Amendment Victory! Wyoming Airport Agrees to Settlement After Rejecting PETA Ad - PETA - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Our View: Theres nothing murky about the First Amendment - Palestine Herald Press - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Ohio Universitys complicated history with the First Amendment and student expression - The New Political - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- A free press makes a country free The First Amendment protects the liberty of all - Hawaii Tribune-Herald - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Whats the First Amendment Got to Do With It? The White Houses Associated Press Ban - Law.com - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Opinion | The First Amendment Isnt on Trumps Side - The Wall Street Journal - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Trump Tries To Carve Out a First Amendment Exception for 'Fake News' - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- MTHS receives its 15th First Amendment Press Freedom Award - MLT News - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]