{"id":15066,"date":"2021-01-27T20:56:32","date_gmt":"2021-01-27T20:56:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.radiofree.org\/?p=155377"},"modified":"2021-01-27T20:56:32","modified_gmt":"2021-01-27T20:56:32","slug":"this-is-not-a-game-internet-defenders-warn-against-gutting-of-section-230-key-law-for-online-speech","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2021\/01\/27\/this-is-not-a-game-internet-defenders-warn-against-gutting-of-section-230-key-law-for-online-speech\/","title":{"rendered":"‘This Is Not a Game’: Internet Defenders Warn Against Gutting of Section 230\u2014Key Law for Online Speech"},"content":{"rendered":"
A coalition of internet defenders on Wednesday cautioned lawmakers against responding to this month’s attack on the U.S. Capitol by making “uncareful changes” to section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that could “profoundly alter the state of digital free speech and human rights.”<\/p>\n
The warning came in a letter<\/a> to members of Congress and the Biden-Harris administration from a diverse collection of over 70 groups representing issues such as racial justice, sex workers, digital rights, and global human rights. Signatories include Common Cause, Fight for the Future, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the Wikimedia Foundation.<\/p>\n “Gutting Section 230 would make it more difficult for web platforms to combat the type of dangerous rhetoric that led to the attack on the Capitol. And certain carve-outs to the law could threaten human rights and silence movements for social and racial justice that are needed now more than ever,” the groups wrote.<\/p>\n At issue is legislation the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) describes<\/a> as “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet.” Section 230 states<\/a>, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”<\/p>\n What that means, as EFF summarizes, is that “online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do”\u2014a framework that “has allowed for YouTube and Vimeo users to upload their own videos, Amazon and Yelp to offer countless user reviews, craigslist to host classified ads, and Facebook and Twitter to offer social networking to hundreds of millions of Internet users.”<\/p>\n But an overhaul of the law may be on the horizon.<\/p>\n As Business Insider<\/em> reported<\/a> earlier this month:<\/p>\n Section 230 has come under heavy fire from Trump and the Republicans, who claim that the Big Tech companies discriminate against conservatives. Trump called for the revocation of Section 230<\/a> numerous times, and vetoed a $741 billion defense bill over it in December<\/a>.<\/p>\n A new administration does not mean reform of Section 230 will be abandoned, as Democrats have also attacked the law, saying it gives the tech companies too much legal protection for hosting harmful content. President-elect Joe Biden in January said he was in favor of repealing it<\/a>.<\/p>\n This could place tech companies in major jeopardy, as it would expose them to huge legal risk for what their users post, and with the Democrats controlling both Houses they now have more of a chance of legislating Section 230 how they see fit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The possibility of major or ill-conceived changes to the law, the groups warn, should be cause for serious concern.<\/p>\n In their letter, they argue that the “danger posed by uncareful changes to Section 230 is not theoretical,” pointing to impacts from the FOSTA\/SESTA legislation of 2018 that altered the law and “put lives in danger.”<\/p>\n\n