Online Free Speech Rules Derail Defense Bill

A dispute over Internet law has led to a Presidential veto of a major defense bill. Lawmakers will now decide whether to reject Donald Trump's demands to remove rules on how websites and services handle content posted by users.

The bill in question authorizes US military spending for the next year. One of the quirks of the US legislative system is that bills can include measures which have little or nothing to do with the main subject of the proposed law. These measures are often the result of negotiation between politicians.

In this case, Trump wants the defense bill to include a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The defense bill passed Congress without including this repeal and Trump has now vetoed it. Lawmakers will vote this week with a two-thirds majority required in both houses to overturn the veto and turn the bill into law despite Trump's objections. (Source: theverge.com)

Law Protects Website Operators

Section 230 was originally designed to find a way of applying rules on free speech and publisher responsibility to online content. It's a brief passage which has two main measures. The first is that publishers aren't held responsible for content provided by a third party, for example on a website comment section or posts on a social network.

The second measure is that website operators acting in good faith can't be sued for deleting or moderating third-party content. Both Section 230 itself and subsequent court rulings say that sites deleting user posts doesn't violate the constitutional right to free speech.

Bi-Partisan Support To Revoke

Both Trump and President-Elect Joseph Biden have said Section 230 should be revoked, though for different reasons. Biden has argued that it gives sites like Facebook too much protection for lawsuits such as libel cases compared with traditional media sources. That argument has been disputed as the protection only covers material posted by users, not by Facebook itself. (Source: arstechnica.com)

Meanwhile Trump objects to the protection for sites deleting or moderating material. That view appears in part to be a response to Twitter putting "fact check" warnings next to his posts, along with the possibility that once he is no longer in office, it may delete any posts that violate its rules.

While it appears likely that Congress will reject Trump's demands on this occasion, the issue of Section 230 is unlikely to go away. Many politicians, lawyers and free speech campaigners have made suggestions about how it could be amended rather than removed. These include restricting the protections to sites who act in "reasonable" manner or making sites share responsibility if they are made aware that content is libelous or unlawful and then choose not to remove it.

What's Your Opinion?

Should Section 230 be revoked or amended? Is it appropriate to do so as part of a bill on a different topic? Should sites have the right to delete user content?