Stop Shielding Culpable Platforms Act

I 117TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 2000 To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that such section does not prevent a provider or user of an interactive com- puter service from being treated as the distributor of information pro- vided by another information content provider, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 18, 2021 Mr. BANKS (for himself, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. BARR, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. BABIN, and Mr. GIBBS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce A BILL To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that such section does not prevent a provider or user of an interactive computer service from being treated as the distributor of information provided by another information content provider, and for other pur- poses. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 1 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 2 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 3 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Shielding Cul- 4 pable Platforms Act’’. 5 VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:23 May 14, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2000.IH H2000 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS 2 •HR 2000 IH SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS. 1 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 2 (1) Section 230 of the Communications Act of 3 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), as added by the Communica- 4 tions Decency Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 5 110 Stat. 133), was enacted to ensure that third 6 parties would not be held liable as the publisher of 7 another entity’s speech, not to allow online platforms 8 to knowingly distribute unlawful materials. 9 (2) Since enacted, section 230 has been mis- 10 interpreted to apply distributor immunity as well as 11 publisher immunity to online platforms. As recently 12 explained by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in 13 a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in 14 Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, 15 LLC, No. 19–1284 (October 13, 2020), ‘‘Although 16 the text of §230(c)(1) grants immunity only from 17 ‘publisher’ or ‘speaker’ liability, the first appellate 18 court to consider the statute held that it eliminates 19 distributor liability too—that is, §230 confers immu- 20 nity even when a company distributes content that 21 it knows is illegal.’’. 22 (3) This assertion contradicts a plain reading of 23 the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which in- 24 cludes distributor liability for exposing children to 25 obscene material. This ill-conceived precedent, first 26 VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:23 May 14, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2000.IH H2000 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS 3 •HR 2000 IH established in Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 1 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), has resulted in online 2 platforms having little to no responsibility to act as 3 a ‘‘good Samaritan’’, even when moderating illicit 4 material. 5 (4) It has recently been reported by the New 6 York Times that Pornhub executives believe that 7 section 230 protects them from liability for their 8 platform allegedly hosting videos of rape, child 9 abuse, and other criminal activity. 10 (5) As reported in the New York Post, a recent 11 lawsuit has alleged that Twitter left up a child por- 12 nography video despite being notified by the victim, 13 and only took it down after Federal officials inter- 14 vened. 15 (6) Every American is entitled to equal justice 16 under the law. 17 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con- 18 gress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 19 (47 U.S.C. 230) does not provide distributor immunity 20 and does not protect big tech companies when such compa- 21 nies knowingly peddle unlawful material. 22 SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF DISTRIBUTOR LIABILITY. 23 Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 24 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)) is amended— 25 VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:23 May 14, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2000.IH H2000 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS 4 •HR 2000 IH (1) by striking ‘‘No’’ and inserting the fol- 1 lowing: 2 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No’’; and 3 (2) by adding at the end the following: 4 ‘‘(B) NO EFFECT ON TREATMENT AS DIS- 5 TRIBUTOR.—Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall 6 be construed to prevent a provider or user of an 7 interactive computer service from being treated 8 as the distributor of information provided by 9 another information content provider.’’. 10 Æ VerDate Sep 11 2014 23:23 May 14, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6301 E:\BILLS\H2000.IH H2000 pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS