Internet Censorship Bill Would Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation

["Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
> Date: September 3, 2017 at 1:22:40 AM EDT
> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Internet Censorship Bill Would Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation
> Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com
>
> Internet Censorship Bill Would Spell Disaster for Speech and Innovation
> By  ELLIOT HARMON
> Aug 2 2017
> <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/internet-censorship-bill-would-spell-disaster-speech-and-innovation>
>
> There’s a new bill in Congress that would threaten your right to free expression online. If that weren’t enough, it 
> could also put small Internet businesses in danger of catastrophic litigation.
>
> Don’t let its name fool you: the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693) wouldn’t help punish sex 
> traffickers. What the bill would do (PDF) is expose any person, organization, platform, or business that hosts 
> third-party content on the Internet to the risk of overwhelming criminal and civil liability if sex traffickers use 
> their services. For small Internet businesses, that could be fatal: with the possibility of devastating litigation 
> costs hanging over their heads, we think that many entrepreneurs and investors will be deterred from building new 
> businesses online.
>
> Make no mistake: sex trafficking is a real, horrible problem. This bill is not the way to address it. Lawmakers 
> should think twice before passing a disastrous law and endangering free expression and innovation.
>
> Take action
>
> Don’t let Congress censor the Internet
>
> Section 230: The Law that Built the Modern Internet
>
> SESTA would weaken 47 U.S.C. § 230, as enacted by the Communications Decency Act (commonly known as "CDA 230" or 
> simply “Section 230”), one of the most important laws protecting free expression online.
>
> You might remember the fight over the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), a law designed to put harsh 
> restrictions on free speech over the Internet. The bill passed despite overwhelming opposition from Internet users, 
> but with EFF’s help, the bill’s censorship provisions were gutted by the Supreme Court in 1997.
>
> One key piece of the bill that remained was Section 230. Section 230 deals with intermediaries—individuals, 
> companies, and organizations that provide a platform for others to share speech and content over the Internet. 
> Section 230 says that for purposes of enforcing certain laws affecting speech online, an intermediary cannot be held 
> legally responsible for any content created by others. The law thus protects intermediaries against a range of laws 
> that might otherwise be used to hold them liable for what others say and do on their platforms.
>
> Section 230 laid the groundwork for the explosion in U.S. Internet business that’s taken place over the past two 
> decades. Think of how many websites or services you use host third-party content in some way—social media sites, 
> photo and video-sharing apps, newspaper comment sections, and even community mailing lists. All of those providers 
> rely on Section 230. Without Section 230, these businesses might have to review every bit of content a user wanted to 
> publish to make sure that the content would not be illegal or create a risk of civil liability. It’s easy to see how 
> such measures would stifle completely lawful speech.
>
> If SESTA becomes law, it will place that very burden on intermediaries. Although large intermediaries may have the 
> resources to take on this monumental task, small startups don’t. Internet startups—a major growth engine in today’s 
> economy—would become much more dangerous investments. Web platforms run by nonprofit and community groups, which 
> serve as invaluable outlets for free expression and knowledge sharing, would be equally at risk.
>
> Giving States a Censorship Pass
>
> While SESTA’s purpose may be only to fight sex trafficking, it brings a deeper threat to many types of free 
> expression online. The bill would create an exception to Section 230 for enforcement of any state criminal law 
> targeting sex trafficking activities. It would also add an exemption for federal civil law relating to sex 
> trafficking (as it stands now, Section 230 already doesn’t apply to federal criminal law, including laws against 
> trafficking and receiving money from child sex trafficking).
>
> [snip]
>
> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/wa8dzp



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170903030113:AA64661E-9075-11E7-97BD-B3B62641AA67
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com