Dozens Of Human Rights Group Tell Congress: Do Not Gut Section 230 On Our Behalf; It'll Do More Harm Than Good
from the say-it-loud dept
As Congress (on both sides of the aisle) continues to explore new and dumber ways to wreck Section 230, often claiming that they need to do it to “protect” or “help” certain people or groups, over 70 civil rights, human rights, and social justice groups have sent a letter to Congress and the new administration, telling them that they are targeting the wrong thing, and that destroying the open internet will do a lot more harm than good.
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.
Section 230 is a foundational law for free expression and human rights when it comes to digital speech. It makes it possible for websites and online forums to host the opinions, photos, videos, memes, and creativity of ordinary people, rather than just content that is backed by corporations.
The danger posed by uncareful changes to Section 230 is not theoretical. The last major change to the law, the passage of SESTA/FOSTA in 2018, put lives in danger. The impacts of this law were immediate and destructive, limiting the accounts of sex workers and making it more difficult to find and help those who were being trafficked online. This was widely seen as a disaster that made vulnerable communities less safe and led to widespread removal of speech online. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Ro Khanna have sponsored legislation to investigate the harm done by SESTA/FOSTA. Lawmakers should pass this bill and examine past mistakes before modifying Section 230, and should hold hearings on the human rights and civil liberties implications of altering the law before legislating further. Overly broad changes to Section 230 could disproportionately harm and silence marginalized people, whose voices have been historically ignored by mainstream press outlets. For example, social media platforms would be unlikely to host viral videos of police violence that have spurred nationwide uprisings for racial justice if they faced constant litigation from law enforcement for doing so.
The effort was put together by the always wonderful Fight for the Future, and has some amazing signatories, including Wikimedia, Access Now, Common Cause, Data for Black Lives, Global Voices, Hollaback!, Lucy Parsons Labs, Media Justice, National Black Justice Coalition, National Lawyers Guild, PEN America, Public Knowledge, and many others that work on civil rights for various marginalized groups. Since the changes to 230 that are often proposed are put forth with misleading claims about how they’re meant to “protect” these groups, it’s great to see them speaking out and effectively saying “not in my name.”
Filed Under: civil rights, human rights, section 230, social justice
Comments on “Dozens Of Human Rights Group Tell Congress: Do Not Gut Section 230 On Our Behalf; It'll Do More Harm Than Good”
“That’s a feature of 230 reform, not a bug!” — every police union in the country
'You shut up when I'm talking for you!'
I foresee a whole lot of instant amnesia in the capitol in the near future, as every single person arguing against 230 and using those groups as examples of who it ‘harms’ will magically forget the very existence of the letter in fine anti-230 tradition where facts aren’t just optional they’re to be avoided at all costs and it doesn’t’ matter what someone said just what you want them to have said.
that’s it then! done job! it’ll be kicked out within 3-6 months, primarily because of being informed that gutting it will do more harm than good and the stupid, thick fuckers who have been trying to get rid of it for who knows how long will take the comment as a very real reason to do the opposite! let’s face it, with politicians, you cant put sense where there isn’t room and nothing, absolutely nothing stops a politician from lining his/her own pockets in preference to looking after their voters!!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
"Not in my name", huh? Funny when the shoe’s on the other foot….wonder if they’ll be ignored like NotYourShield was way back when.
Whenever you hear something along the lines of "I’m from the Government and I’m here to help (or protect) you." or "It’s for the children!" you can be sure that disaster is imminent.
We must all do whatever we can to help in the fight to preserve Section 230, and to remove the misguided mess that is SESTA/FOSTA while we are at it.
Re:
Wow. I didn’t think Reagan-era conservatives were still a thing.
Re: Re: Re:
"Wow. I didn’t think Reagan-era conservatives were still a thing."
Of course they are. They’re called "liberals" and – not rarely – "democrats" now.
Or, depending on the source you ask, "leftists" and "antifa".
Re: Re:
…you…get that section 230 was passed by Congress, right? The same governmental body that’s currently threatening to repeal it?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Big Tech
The only thing protected by Section 230 is Big Tech and its owners, the Mega Rich. If they don’t side with your "group" you are canceled and after tomorrow, no one will know you existed. If Section 230 is not one of the foundations of Fascism, what is??
Re: Big Tech
Answer me this: if a company is made responsible for user posts, why would they allow them?
At a smaller scale, if you run blog, would you allow user comments if you could be sued for the contents?
Re: Big Tech
WRONG A.F.. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects every single website out there, and it protects the users as well. Just read the damn thing if you don’t believe me.
Re: Just no
That is not just wrong it is fracatally wrong. 230 protects everyone but it protects smaller platforms more than the big ones because unlike the likes of Google and Facebook smaller platforms aren’t likely to have the resources to deal with the issues that would crop up without 230 to shield them.
There is a reason Facebook is in favor of 230 ‘reform’ and just a hint but it might be because they know something you don’t.
Re: Big Tech
Zero facts in evidence for your religious belief there. Next.
Re:
People who run small forums for niche subjects are protected by Section 230. People who own and operate Mastodon instances are protected by Section 230. Every website and web service that allows third-party content, no matter how small the site/service or how benign the content, is protected by Section 230.
So, too, are the users of all those sites/services. They can’t be held liable for third-party speech if, say, they boost it into their timelines or quote part of it.
47 U.S.C. § 230 protects more people than you think. One of those people is you.
Also: One of the foundations of fascism would probably look like the government forcing an interactive web service to host offensive, hateful, and otherwise objectionable speech out of some depraved sense of “neutrality”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Jhon Herrick Smith bitching about women needing protection because he thinks they’re all whores in 3, 2, 1…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Why was this truth censored?
Re: Re: Re:
Off topic and because it was entirely unnecessary, everyone already knows about Jhon’s MO.
This needs to be a Constitutional Amendment: all laws passed must include funding for an independent GAO to measure benefit and harm.