Our Online Speech Rights Are Under Threat
Congress on Wednesday a little-known law that has made the internet the space for self-expression and connection that it is today. The law, , is one of the most speech protective laws Congress has ever enacted and it is now under threat.
The internet today provides us an indispensable platform to communicate freely with others who might otherwise be beyond reach. One person with an idea or a desire to create change can reach millions. April Reign coined the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite in 2015 and spawned an online movement drawing attention to the lack of representation of people of color in the nominated films.
Like Reign, people around the world are leveraging the internet to fight back against anything from systemic racism to the tactics of oppressive regimes. And the benefits can be personal too 鈥� new parents needing advice on a stroller can turn to online parent message boards, home gardeners seeking lawn care tips can turn to DIY gardening blogs, and more.
This is possible because so many online forums enable speakers to communicate freely on their platforms. Wikipedia provides a free online encyclopedia in scores of languages, thanks to volunteers around the world. Yelp lets us give recommendations on anything from restaurants to nail salons. Consumer watchdog sites encourage the public to submit reports of corporate malfeasance. Environmental activists at sites like ask citizens to submit horror stories about fracking in their communities. The asks users to report bed bug infestations. And then, of course, there are Facebook and Twitter.
CDA 230 makes communication on these platforms possible by assuring online platforms that they generally won鈥檛 be liable for user-generated content. Yelp can't be held legally responsible every time one of its users posts a potentially false negative review. The Bed Bug Registry doesn't have to visit every hotel with a magnifying glass to confirm the public reports. And Facebook can offer a forum for billions of users to share their thoughts, pictures, memes, and videos freely without having to approve every post before it goes up.
If it weren鈥檛 for CDA 230, no website owner would permit public posts knowing that the site could be investigated, shut down, sued, or charged with a felony over one user鈥檚 speech. Avoiding legal risk would require even the smallest blog to hire an army of lawyers to assess in real-time all content created and uploaded by users. It鈥檚 unaffordable. Instead, sites would avoid legal liability by simply refusing to host user-generated content at all.
Of course, users make mistakes. We get facts wrong. We can be terrible to one another in ways that break the law, offend, or hurt. Bad actors can 鈥� and do 鈥� abuse the internet for nefarious and destructive purposes. But there are already safeguards in place to address harmful content not protected under the First Amendment, and Section 230 does not shield bad actors or lawbreakers. If you use Facebook to harass someone (please, don鈥檛 do that), you remain responsible for those actions.
CDA 230 also doesn鈥檛 stop online platforms from trying to cultivate orderly, pleasant, and useful sites. While the biggest social media companies, responsible for hosting the speech of billions, should resist calls to censor lawful speech, CDA 230 allows sites to delete abusive accounts, remove content that violates the site鈥檚 terms of service, or refuse to carry pornography without risking liability for the speech that they do host.
Despite these safeguards, the obvious good CDA 230 has done in creating a free, vibrant forum for speech in the modern era, and the clear harm that would result for the speech of billions should it no longer exist, some lawmakers are considering rolling the law鈥檚 protections back in ways that are poorly informed and even dangerous. One lawmaker a bill that would require a federal agency to decide whether a platform complies with a 鈥減olitical neutrality鈥� requirement as a precondition for immunity. Others revoking platforms鈥� immunity when moderating 鈥渙bjectionable鈥� content while retaining immunity for moderating 鈥渦nlawful content鈥� in good faith.
Setting aside the obvious constitutional problems with a government entity judging the political content of speech, or dictating the censorship decisions of online platforms, these proposals would make it far less palatable for online services to host others鈥� speech at all. If enacted, the internet鈥檚 marketplace of ideas 鈥� and our freedom to communicate online 鈥� would suffer.
The 老澳门开奖结果 has continued to fight for Section 230 to protect people鈥檚 ability to create and communicate online. We have encouraged courts to interpret the law鈥檚 immunity provisions to enable as much free expression online as possible under U.S. law. We will remain vigilant in ensuring that the internet remains a place for self-expression and creation for all. We urge Members of Congress as they examine CDA 230鈥檚 role in the free expression to do the same.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.