CDA 230 Reform Grows Up: The PACT Act Has Problems, But It’s Talking About the Right Things
By Daphne Keller on July 16, 2020 at 6:02 pm
Whether and when communications platforms like Google, Twitter and Facebook are liable for their users’ online activities is one of the key factors that affects innovation and free speech. Most creative expression today takes place over communications networks owned by private companies. Governments around the world increasingly press intermediaries to block their users’ undesirable online content in order to suppress dissent, hate speech, privacy violations and the like. One form of pressure is to make communications intermediaries legally responsible for what their users do and say. Liability regimes that put platform companies at legal risk for users’ online activity are a form of censorship-by-proxy, and thereby imperil both free expression and innovation, even as governments seek to resolve very real policy problems.
In the United States, the core doctrines of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have allowed these online intermediary platforms user generated content to flourish. But, immunities and safe harbors for intermediaries are under threat in the U.S. and globally as governments seek to deputize intermediaries to assist in law enforcement.
To contribute to this important policy debate, CIS studies international approaches to intermediary obligations concerning users’ copyright infringement, defamation, hate speech or other vicarious liabilities, immunities, or safe harbors; publishes a repository of information on international liability regimes and works with global platforms and free expression groups to advocate for policies that will protect innovation, freedom of expression, privacy and other user rights.
By Daphne Keller on July 16, 2020 at 6:02 pm
By Riana Pfefferkorn on July 6, 2020 at 11:45 am
On July 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a full-committee hearing at which it made significant changes to the pending EARN IT Act bill, S.3398, about which I’ve written extensively on the CIS blog. Read more about The EARN IT Act Threatens Our Online Freedoms. New Amendments Don’t Fix It.
By Riana Pfefferkorn on June 24, 2020 at 4:50 pm
On Tuesday, June 23, Senators Graham (R-SC), Cotton (R-AR), and Blackburn (R-TN) introduced a bill that is a full-frontal nuclear assault on encryption in the United States. You can find the bill text here. Read more about There’s Now an Even Worse Anti-Encryption Bill Than EARN IT. That Doesn’t Make the EARN IT Bill OK.
By Daphne Keller on May 28, 2020 at 2:28 pm
Policymakers in Europe and around the world are currently pursuing two reasonable-sounding goals for platform regulation. First, they want platforms to abide by a “duty of care,” going beyond today’s notice-and-takedown based legal models to more proactively weed out illegal content posted by users. Second, they want to preserve existing immunities, with platforms generally not facing liability for content they aren’t aware of. Read more about Systemic Duties of Care and Intermediary Liability