AgdaPkt 2020-09-21 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

A. - Page 10 of 14 "The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications teclulology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share thea views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforins function in many ways as a 21 st century equivalent of the public square. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see." Ultimately the President implores the U.S. Attorney General to develop a proposal for federal legislation that "would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order." The President is not subtle in communicating his desire to ultimately see legislation heavily slanted toward the preservation of free speech on social media, which some interpret as a maneuver to preempt Twitter and Facebook from regulating speech they otherwise deem as hateful or demonstrably false. Considerations for Congass Courts have generally construed Section 230 to grant internet service providers broad immunity for hosting others' content. Many have claimed that Section 230's immunity provisions were critical to the development of the modem internet, and some continue to defend Section 230's broad scope. But simultaneously, a variety of cone-nentators and legislators have questioned whether those immunity provisions should now be narrowed, given that the internet looks much different today than it did in 1996 when Section 230 was first enacted. One way for Congress to narrow Section 230's liability shield would be to create additional exceptions, as it did with FOSTA and SESTA'. If a lawsuit does not fall into one of the express exceptions contained in Section 230(e)3, courts may have to engage in a highly fact -specific inquiry to determine whether Section 230 immunity applies: Section 230(c)(1) immunity will be inapplicable if the provider itself has developed or helped to develop the disputed content, while Section 230(c)(2) immunity may not apply if a service provider's decision to restrict access to content was not made in good faith. Date Storage and Usage Considerations for Cities Section 2 of the conditions the resolution applies to civil immunity requires that online platforms provide relevant information to law enforcement to assist in the identification and apprehension of persons who use the services of the platfonn to solicit and to engage in criminal activity. This section would most likely require the development of new procedures and protocols that govern law enforcements usage and retention of such information. Those new policies and procedures would undoubtedly raise privacy concerns depending on how wide the latitude is for law 2 The Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) create an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms. 3 Section 230(e) says that Section 230 will not apply to: (1) federal criminal laws; (2) intellectual property laws; (3) any state law that is "consistent with" Section 230; (4) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986; and (5) civil actions or state prosecutions where the underlying conduct violates federal law prohibiting sex trafficking. 11 146