Free Speech
Internet Industry Under the Microscope as House Committee Grills Witnesses on Liability for Online Content

WASHINGTON, October 16, 2019 – The chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday said that technology companies need to “step up” and better address challenges surrounding online content. If not, they will likely have to navigate a world in which Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act is modified.
The internet is more sophisticated than it was when Section 230 was enacted as part of the Telecom Act of 1996, said Chairman Frank Pallone, D-N.J.
But Ranking Member Greg Walden, R-Ore., countered that the internet isn’t something that can be regulated and managed by the government. When discussing Section 230 reform, he said, there needs to be differentiation between illegal content and constitutionally protected speech.
The witnesses present at the hearing echoed the notion that Section 230 needs to stay. Yet the bill does have some issues that should be addressed.
Reddit Co-Founder and CEO Steve Huffman said that even slightly narrowing the constraints of the CDA could undermine the freedom of the internet. At Reddit, for example, individual users play a crucial role in self-moderation of content. Those interactions, he said, helped curb Russian meddling in the 2016 election via social media.
Section 230 needs to return to its original purpose, said Danielle Keats Citron, professor of law at Boston University School of Law. When the bill was first introduced, she said, its goal was to incentivize online platforms to be at the forefront of moderation.
Nowadays, Citron added, Section 230 has created a legal shield that covers the actions conducted by these platforms, including websites that may engage in illegal activities. This problem, she said, requires legal reform and can’t be solved by the market alone.
The CDA has helped regular people by removing much of the gatekeeping for social change, said Corynne McSherry, legal director at Electronic Frontier Foundation. Increasing company liability, she said, could lead to over-censorship and stifle competition as smaller firms would be burdened by regulation.
In contrast, Gretchen Peters, executive director at Alliance to Counter Crime Online, said that tech companies need to face greater liability in order for them to reduce online safety risks. Social media algorithms, she said, are used by terrorist organizations and other nefarious people to further their agendas.
Section 230 is more about liability than freedom of speech, she said. Because of safe harbors and broad interpretation of the bill, tech firms have failed to uphold their end of the bargain to protect people from dangerous online content.
Hany Farid, professor at the University of California, Berkeley, advised the Committee not to view artificial intelligence as the “savior” for content moderation. The billions of contents created every day, he said, would be too much for mere automation to handle. Human action is necessary to uphold a decent standard of online communication.
Google’s Global Head of Intellectual Property Policy Katherine Oyama said that her company’s ability to take action on questionable content is underpinned by the foundation of Section 230’s regulations.
The CDA helps differentiate the US from how countries such as China and Russia approach the internet, she said. Furthermore, weakening online safe harbors could have a recession-like impact on investment and cause companies to suffer more intensely from consumer litigation.
Without Section 230, Oyama added, online platforms would either not be able to filter content at all or over-filter content that needs to be heard, hurting both consumers and businesses.
Free Speech
UK’s Online Safety Bill Likely to Impact American User Experience
The bill will affect the tone and content of discussion on U.S.-owned platforms that wish to continue offering UK services.

WASHINGTON, July 21, 2023 – The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Bill will impact the American-based user’s experience on various platforms, said panelist at a Broadband Breakfast Live Online event Wednesday.
The Online Safety Bill is the UK’s response to concerns about the negative impact of various internet platforms and applications. The core of the bill addresses illegal content and content that is harmful to children. It places a duty of care on internet sites, including social media platforms, search engines, and online shopping centers, to provide risk assessments for their content, prevent access to illegal content, protect privacy, and prevent children from accessing harmful content.
The legislation would apply to any business that has a substantial user base in the UK, having unforeseen impacts on the end user experience, said Amy Peikoff, Chief Policy Officer of UK-based video-streaming platform, BitChute.
Even though the legislation is not U.S. legislation, it will affect the tone and content of discussion on U.S.-owned platforms that wish to continue offering their services in the jurisdictions where this legislation will be enacted, said Peikoff. Already, the European Union’s Digital Services Act, is affecting Twitter, which is “throttling its speech” to turn out statistics that say a certain percentage of their content is “healthy,” she claimed.
Large social media companies as we know them are finished, Peikoff said.
Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, will be responsible to provide guidelines and best practices as well as conduct investigations and auditing. It will be authorized to apprehend revenue if a company fails to adhere to laws and may enact rules that require companies to provide user data to the agency and/or screen user messages for harmful content.
Peikoff claimed that the legislation could set off a chain of events, “namely, that platforms like BitChute would be required to affirmatively, proactively scan every single piece of content – comments, videos, whatever posted to the platform – and keep a record of any flags.” She added that U.S-based communication would not be exempt.
Meta-owned WhatsApp, a popular messaging app, has warned that it will exit the UK market if the legislation requires it to release data about its users or screen their messages, claiming that doing so would “compromise” the privacy of all users and threaten the encryption on its platform.
Matthew Lesh, director of public policy and communications at the UK think tank Institute of Economic Affairs, said that the bill is a “recipe for censorship on an industrial, mechanical scale.” He warned that many companies will choose to simply block UK-based users from using their services, harming UK competitiveness globally and discouraging investors.
In addition, Lesh highlighted privacy concerns introduced by the legislation. By levying fines on platforms that host harmful content accessible by children, companies may have to screen for children by requiring users to present government-issued IDs, presenting a major privacy concern for users.
The primary issue with the bill and similar policies, said Lesh, is that it enacts the same moderation policies to all online platforms, which can limit certain speech and stop healthy discussion and interaction cross political lines.
The bill is currently in the final stages of the committee stage in the House of Lords, the UK’s second chamber of parliament. Following its passage, the bill will go to the House of Commons in which it will either be amended or be accepted and become law. General support in the UK’s parliament for the bill suggests that the bill will be implemented sometime next year.
This follows considerable debate in the United States regarding content moderation, many of which discussions are centered around possible reform of Section 230. Section 230 protects platforms from being treated as a publisher or speaker of information originating from a third party, thus shielding it from liability for the posts of the latter.
Our Broadband Breakfast Live Online events take place on Wednesday at 12 Noon ET. Watch the event on Broadband Breakfast, or REGISTER HERE to join the conversation.
Wednesday, July 19, 2023 – The UK’s Online Safety Bill
The UK’s Online Safety Bill seeks to make the country “the safest place in the world to be online” has seen as much upheaval as the nation itself in the last four years. Four prime ministers, one Brexit and one pandemic later, it’s just a matter of time until the bill finally passes the House of Lords and eventually becomes law. Several tech companies including WhatsApp, Signal, and Wikipedia have argued against its age limitation and breach of end-to-end encryption. Will this legislation serve as a model for governments worldwide to regulate online harms? What does it mean for the future of U.S. social media platforms?
Panelists
- Amy Peikoff, Chief Policy Officer, BitChute
- Matthew Lesh, Director of Public Policy and Communications at the Institute of Economic Affairs.
- Drew Clark (moderator), Editor and Publisher, Broadband Breakfast
Panelist resources
- An Unsafe Bill: How the Online Safety Bill threatens free speech, innovation and privacy, Institute of Economic Affairs
- Big Tech Behind Bars? The UK’s Online Safety Bill Explained, CNET, January 19, 2023
- The hidden harms in the Online Safety Bill, The Spectator, August 20, 2022
Amy Peikoff is Chief Policy Officer for BitChute. She holds a BS in Math/Applied Science and a JD from UCLA, as well as a PhD in Philosophy from University of Southern California, and has focused in her academic work and legal activism on issues related to the proper legal protection of privacy. In 2020, she became Chief Policy Officer for the free speech social media platform, Parler, where she served until Parler was purchased in April 2023.
Matthew Lesh is the Director of Public Policy and Communications at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Matthew often appears on television and radio, is a columnist for London’s CityAM newspaper, and a regular writer for publications such as The Times, The Telegraph and The Spectator. He is also a Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute and Institute of Public Affairs.
Drew Clark is CEO of Breakfast Media LLC. He has led the Broadband Breakfast community since 2008. An early proponent of better broadband, better lives, he initially founded the Broadband Census crowdsourcing campaign for broadband data. As Editor and Publisher, Clark presides over the leading media company advocating for higher-capacity internet everywhere through topical, timely and intelligent coverage. Clark also served as head of the Partnership for a Connected Illinois, a state broadband initiative.

Illustration from the Spectator
As with all Broadband Breakfast Live Online events, the FREE webcasts will take place at 12 Noon ET on Wednesday.
SUBSCRIBE to the Broadband Breakfast YouTube channel. That way, you will be notified when events go live. Watch on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
See a complete list of upcoming and past Broadband Breakfast Live Online events.
Free Speech
New Tool Measures Economic Impact of Internet Shutdowns
The calculator is being called a ‘major step forward’ for those pushing back against such shutdowns.

July 10, 2023 – New measuring tool NetLoss launched by the Internet Society shows the impacts of internet shutdowns on economies including Iraq, Sudan and Pakistan, where government-mandated outages have cost millions of dollars in a matter of hours or days.
NetLoss, launched on June 28, calculated a four-hour shutdown in July in Iraq, implemented by the government to prevent cheating during high school exam season, resulted in an estimated loss of $1.6 million. In May, a shutdown in Pakistan cost more than $13 million over the span of four days, while a five-day internet outage in Sudan in April cost the economy more than $4 million and resulted in the loss of 560 jobs.
NetLoss is unique among other internet assessment tools as it also includes subsequent economic impacts on the unemployment rate, foreign direct investments, and the risk of future shutdowns, claimed the advocacy group Internet Society. It provides data on both ongoing and anticipated shutdowns, drawing from historical dataset of over 90 countries dating back to 2019.
“The calculator is a major step forward for the community of journalists, policymakers, technologists and other stakeholders who are pushing back against the damaging practice of Internet shutdowns,” said Andrew Sullivan, CEO of the Internet Society. “Its groundbreaking and fully transparent methodology will help show governments around the world that shutting down the Internet is never a solution.”
The tool relies on open-access databases, including the Internet Society Pulse’s Shutdown data, the World Bank’s economic indicators, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project’s civil unrest data, Yale University’s election data, and other relevant socioeconomic factors. To stay up to date with real-time changes, the data will be updated quarterly.
According to the press release, internet shutdowns worldwide peaked in 2022 with governments increasingly blocking internet services due to concerns over civil unrest or cybersecurity threats. These disruptions are extremely damaging to the economy, read the document, as they impede online commercial activities and expose companies and the economy to financial and reputational risks.
Section 230
Supreme Court Sides With Google and Twitter, Leaving Section 230 Untouched
A wide range of tech industry associations and civil liberties advocates applauded the decision to leave Section 230 untouched.

WASHINGTON, May 18, 2023 — The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Google and Twitter in a pair of high-profile cases involving intermediary liability for user-generated content, marking a significant victory for online platforms and other proponents of Section 230.
In Twitter v. Taamneh, the court ruled that Twitter could not be held liable for abetting terrorism by hosting terrorist content. The unanimous decision was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who had previously signaled interest in curtailing liability protections for online platforms.
“Notably, the two justices who have been most critical of Section 230 and internet platforms said nothing of the sort here,” said Ari Cohn, free speech counsel at TechFreedom.
In a brief unsigned opinion remanding Gonzalez v. Google to the Ninth Circuit, the court declined to address Section 230, saying that the case “appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief.”
A wide range of tech industry associations and civil liberties advocates applauded the decision to leave Section 230 untouched.
“Free speech online lives to fight another day,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Twitter and other apps are home to an immense amount of protected speech, and it would be devastating if those platforms resorted to censorship to avoid a deluge of lawsuits over their users’ posts.”
John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, said that lawmakers should take note of the rulings as they continue to debate potential changes to Section 230.
“Over the past several years, we have seen repeated legislative proposals that would remove Section 230 protections for various platform activities, such as content moderation decisions,” Bergmayer said. “But those activities are fully protected by the First Amendment, and removing Section 230 would at most allow plaintiffs to waste time and money in court, before their inevitable loss.”
Instead of weakening liability protections, Bergmayer argued that Congress should focus on curtailing the power of large platforms by strengthening antitrust law and promoting competition.
“Many complaints about Section 230 and content moderation policies amount to concerns about competition and the outsize influence of major platforms,” he said.
The decision was also celebrated by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the statute’s original co-authors.
“Despite being unfairly maligned by political and corporate interests that have turned it into a punching bag for everything wrong with the internet, the law Representative [Chris] Cox and I wrote remains vitally important to allowing users to speak online,” Wyden said in a statement. “While tech companies still need to do far better at policing heinous content on their sites, gutting Section 230 is not the solution.”
However, other lawmakers expressed disappointment with the court’s decision, with some — including Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee — saying that it “underscores the urgency for Congress to enact needed reforms to Section 230.”
-
Funding1 week ago
BEAD Director Says NTIA is Working on Changes to Letter of Credit
-
Community Broadband4 weeks ago
Rural Broadband Provider Touts Cooperative and Coalition-based Models
-
#broadbandlive3 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast on Wednesday, November 1, 2023 – Broadband Deployment from India, Australia, South Africa
-
Funding4 weeks ago
A Deep Dive into the BEAD Program’s Matching Funds
-
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
NTIA Announces Middle Mile Funds, NDIA Director on Closing Digital Divide, More Tribal ACP Outreach Funds
-
Broadband Roundup4 weeks ago
FCC Waives Hurricane Idalia Rules, North Carolina Awards, Fiber Deployment in Kansas
-
Broadband Mapping & Data4 weeks ago
Broadband Breakfast Webinar on Broadband Geospatial Planning
-
Open Access3 weeks ago
Gigapower Exec Pitches Value of Open Access Networks to Maximize BEAD Money Efficiency