Connect with us

Section 230

INCOMPAS Opposes Commerce Department’s Proposal to Redefine Language of Section 230

Published

on

Photo of Lindsey Stern from INCOMPAS web site

September 24, 2020 — Although much of the focus over proposed changes to Section 230 centers around how Big Tech enjoys immunity from liability for user-generated content, policy-makers should not loose sight of how rolling back Section 230 would hamper new entrants.

That’s the message delivered by officials at INCOMPAS, a trade group representing telecom competitors,  during a session of its virtual conference on September 16.

In particular, INCOMPAS is opposed the petition seeking to interpret Section 230 filed by the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said Lindsey Stern, a policy advisor for the group.

The petition was filed at the Federal Communications Commission on July 27, 2020, and the FCC issued a public notice and sought comment on it. The time for public commenting ran from August 3 to September 2, with 15 additional days for reply comments.

”Regulation of online content would harm online innovation, investment and expression,” she said. That would make it very difficult for new companies to develop.

Section 230 allows for a free market to decide what services flourish, whether to offer wanted content or remove unwanted content, and to allow users to have their voices heard, she said.

Second, INCOMPAS believes that legislating is the job of Congress, not the FCC. While it is within the FCC’s jurisdiction to implement a statute by promulgating rules, the NTIA petition is asking the FCC to provide new interpretations of a long ago-passed statute.

“This administration should work with Congress, not the FCC,” said Stern. “The NTIA is asking the FCC to intervene when the statute has already been interpreted by the courts.”

Third, the FCC has a tradition of not regulating online content. Recently, the commission repealed the net neutrality rule and issued a restoring internet freedom order where it decided on light touch regulation, including broadband internet access services.

“It’d be weird to regulate information flowing over [broadband] and not [broadband] itself,” said Stern.

Reporter Liana Sowa grew up in Simsbury, Connecticut. She studied editing and publishing as a writing fellow at Brigham Young University, where she mentored upperclassmen on neuroscience research papers. She enjoys reading and journaling, and marathon-runnning and stilt-walking.

Section 230

Companies May Hesitate Bringing Section 230 Arguments in Court Fearing Political Ramifications: Lawyers

Legal experts say changing views on Section 230 will make platforms less willing to employ that defense in future cases.

Published

on

Carrie Goldberg, founder of C.A. Goldberg law firm

September 24, 2020 — Although much of the focus over proposed changes to Section 230 centers around how Big Tech enjoys immunity from liability for user-generated content, policy-makers should not loose sight of how rolling back Section 230 would hamper new entrants.

That’s the message delivered by officials at INCOMPAS, a trade group representing telecom competitors,  during a session of its virtual conference on September 16.

In particular, INCOMPAS is opposed the petition seeking to interpret Section 230 filed by the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said Lindsey Stern, a policy advisor for the group.

The petition was filed at the Federal Communications Commission on July 27, 2020, and the FCC issued a public notice and sought comment on it. The time for public commenting ran from August 3 to September 2, with 15 additional days for reply comments.

”Regulation of online content would harm online innovation, investment and expression,” she said. That would make it very difficult for new companies to develop.

Section 230 allows for a free market to decide what services flourish, whether to offer wanted content or remove unwanted content, and to allow users to have their voices heard, she said.

Second, INCOMPAS believes that legislating is the job of Congress, not the FCC. While it is within the FCC’s jurisdiction to implement a statute by promulgating rules, the NTIA petition is asking the FCC to provide new interpretations of a long ago-passed statute.

“This administration should work with Congress, not the FCC,” said Stern. “The NTIA is asking the FCC to intervene when the statute has already been interpreted by the courts.”

Third, the FCC has a tradition of not regulating online content. Recently, the commission repealed the net neutrality rule and issued a restoring internet freedom order where it decided on light touch regulation, including broadband internet access services.

“It’d be weird to regulate information flowing over [broadband] and not [broadband] itself,” said Stern.

Continue Reading

Section 230

Head of Big Tech Lobby Group Says Repealing Section 230 Unconstitutional

CTA CEO said abolishing intermediary liability protections violates private industry protections against government interference.

Published

on

Gary Shapiro, CEO of the Consumer Technology Association

September 24, 2020 — Although much of the focus over proposed changes to Section 230 centers around how Big Tech enjoys immunity from liability for user-generated content, policy-makers should not loose sight of how rolling back Section 230 would hamper new entrants.

That’s the message delivered by officials at INCOMPAS, a trade group representing telecom competitors,  during a session of its virtual conference on September 16.

In particular, INCOMPAS is opposed the petition seeking to interpret Section 230 filed by the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said Lindsey Stern, a policy advisor for the group.

The petition was filed at the Federal Communications Commission on July 27, 2020, and the FCC issued a public notice and sought comment on it. The time for public commenting ran from August 3 to September 2, with 15 additional days for reply comments.

”Regulation of online content would harm online innovation, investment and expression,” she said. That would make it very difficult for new companies to develop.

Section 230 allows for a free market to decide what services flourish, whether to offer wanted content or remove unwanted content, and to allow users to have their voices heard, she said.

Second, INCOMPAS believes that legislating is the job of Congress, not the FCC. While it is within the FCC’s jurisdiction to implement a statute by promulgating rules, the NTIA petition is asking the FCC to provide new interpretations of a long ago-passed statute.

“This administration should work with Congress, not the FCC,” said Stern. “The NTIA is asking the FCC to intervene when the statute has already been interpreted by the courts.”

Third, the FCC has a tradition of not regulating online content. Recently, the commission repealed the net neutrality rule and issued a restoring internet freedom order where it decided on light touch regulation, including broadband internet access services.

“It’d be weird to regulate information flowing over [broadband] and not [broadband] itself,” said Stern.

Continue Reading

Section 230

Broadband Breakfast Hosts Section 230 Debate

Two sets of experts debated the merits of reforming or removing and maintaining Section 230.

Published

on

Screenshot taken from Broadband Live Online event

September 24, 2020 — Although much of the focus over proposed changes to Section 230 centers around how Big Tech enjoys immunity from liability for user-generated content, policy-makers should not loose sight of how rolling back Section 230 would hamper new entrants.

That’s the message delivered by officials at INCOMPAS, a trade group representing telecom competitors,  during a session of its virtual conference on September 16.

In particular, INCOMPAS is opposed the petition seeking to interpret Section 230 filed by the Commerce Department’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said Lindsey Stern, a policy advisor for the group.

The petition was filed at the Federal Communications Commission on July 27, 2020, and the FCC issued a public notice and sought comment on it. The time for public commenting ran from August 3 to September 2, with 15 additional days for reply comments.

”Regulation of online content would harm online innovation, investment and expression,” she said. That would make it very difficult for new companies to develop.

Section 230 allows for a free market to decide what services flourish, whether to offer wanted content or remove unwanted content, and to allow users to have their voices heard, she said.

Second, INCOMPAS believes that legislating is the job of Congress, not the FCC. While it is within the FCC’s jurisdiction to implement a statute by promulgating rules, the NTIA petition is asking the FCC to provide new interpretations of a long ago-passed statute.

“This administration should work with Congress, not the FCC,” said Stern. “The NTIA is asking the FCC to intervene when the statute has already been interpreted by the courts.”

Third, the FCC has a tradition of not regulating online content. Recently, the commission repealed the net neutrality rule and issued a restoring internet freedom order where it decided on light touch regulation, including broadband internet access services.

“It’d be weird to regulate information flowing over [broadband] and not [broadband] itself,” said Stern.

Continue Reading

Recent

Signup for Broadband Breakfast

Get twice-weekly Breakfast Media news alerts.
* = required field

 

Trending