Editing Source Documents in the Legislative History of Section 230

From Bibliotheca Anonoma

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 5: Line 5:
Due to the moderate degree of difficulty involved in finding the legislative history, and the improbability of you being here to read the comments of a tired 17-year-old on it, this will mainly be a convenient collection of source documents regarding the legislative history, including speeches, debates, excerpts from reports, and drafts. Some editorial comments will be made to aid the reader but no criticism or judgment of the matter will be made.
Due to the moderate degree of difficulty involved in finding the legislative history, and the improbability of you being here to read the comments of a tired 17-year-old on it, this will mainly be a convenient collection of source documents regarding the legislative history, including speeches, debates, excerpts from reports, and drafts. Some editorial comments will be made to aid the reader but no criticism or judgment of the matter will be made.
==Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act (original source of section 230, died in committee)==
==Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act (original source of section 230, died in committee)==
[This bill was acknowledged in the Senate. However, since the acknowledgment consists of a reprint of a ''Newsweek'' article (obviously not public domain), it will not be reproduced here. Cox and Wyden were also petitioned by an organization not to pass it. This petition will also, for copyright reasons, not be reproduced]
[This bill was acknowledged in the Senate. However, since the acknowledgment consists of a reprint of a ''Newsweek'' article (obviously not public domain), it will not be reproduced here]
  [Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
  [Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
  [From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
  [From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
Line 140: Line 140:
         of a telecommunications system or the management of a  
         of a telecommunications system or the management of a  
         telecommunications service.''.
         telecommunications service.''.
==Exon Considers Cox-Wyden Supplement, not Substitute For, CDA==
[The full text of the letter, while available online, is copyrighted. However, since Senator Exon quoted part of it in a speech to the Senate, I believe the parts he quoted are covered under "fair use" as a report of an actual proceeding on the Senate floor]
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this letter is by a distinguished lawyer, who has, I guess, as much experience with the prosecution of pornographers as most lawyers in the United States would recognize as a real authority on the subject.
  The letter of July 10 is addressed to the Honorable Christopher Cox of the House of Representatives and the Honorable Ron Wyden of the House of Representatives. The subject is the Cox-Wyden bill on Internet connectors as consistent with the Exon-Coats Senate decency amendment. And I quote:


      Dear Representatives Cox and Wyden: Please excuse the
    length of this letter, but much misinformation needs to be
    corrected and this is an issue of utmost importance to
    America's children and families. You have been lied to. I'd
    like to give you my views on the pornographer's propaganda
    and offer an explanation of the true meaning of the Exon-
    Coats amendment dealing with computer assisted obscenity and
    the problem of indecency being made available to minors.
      A review of your proposed legislation to protect the
    computer information service providers shows that you are
    trying to accomplish the same objectives as the Senate
    version of the communications decency amendment (``CDA'').
      Whatever you may have been led to believe about the ``Exon-
    Coats amendment'' is obviously incorrect. The Senate bill
    accomplishes the same benefits and protections your
    proposed bill seeks to provide. However, I feel your bill,
    in giving immunity and a defense without a corresponding
    offense, will have the opposite effect to that which you
    seek.
  Mr. President, although the letter has been printed in the Record, I would like at this time to quote from the last two or three paragraphs:
      The communications decency amendment is a good, fair, and
    constitutional proposal. You and your colleagues have been
    lied to about what it would do and what it provides. I trust
    that you seek a proper blend of law and private action and I
    trust in your instincts to see through the smoke. Without a
    law, the computer nets will continue to be abused by the
    purveyors of hard-core obscenity and it will continue to be a
    place in which responsible adults should fear to let their
    children play. A law that does not prohibit unlawful
    materials is no law at all to the pornography syndicates,
    their associates, and the addicted customers. An overly
    strict law would not be tolerated by the courts, for fear of
    an unconstitutional prior restraint.
      There is no reasonable doubt that only a carefully worded
    and first amendment sensitive statute will survive the legal
    challenges of the ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology,
    Electronic Frontier Foundation, and some commercial
    pornographic companies will mount. The CDA can withstand the
    tests to be applied, no other proposal can make that claim.
    This is a serious problem and needs a serious and lawful
    solution. The CDA would be a valid extension of Federal
    obscenity law to the computer networks and a valid extension
    of dial-a-porn protections for children from indecent adult
    material.
      Our hope is that you sponsor and support the CDA as passed
    by the Senate. Your leadership would probably insure its
    passage. The country, all us parents and grandparents, all of
    our children, our neighbors, even the addicted customers need
    your help and that of your fellow Members of the House of
    Representatives. Please reconsider and look at the
    communications decency amendment in a new light. It is a good
    bill. Look for yourself. It won't lie to you like porn
    advocates have.
      Please let me know if we can be of help in this regard.
          Sincerely yours,
                                                  Bruce A. Taylor,
        President and Chief Counsel for the National Law Center
          for Children and Families
  Mr. President, since the Exon-Coats measure passed with a 84 to 16 majority, the Senate of the United States sent a very loud and clear signal that something has to be done about obscenity. Something has to be done with regard to material that is being used promiscuously on the Internet today. This is a wonderful new system for the distribution of information. But if we are to sit idly by and listen to some of the opponents, who do not want to do anything about this problem, the American people are being convinced and are now being told by national publications, including Time magazine, who last week had an indepth story with a front-page cover showing a child.
  This is a carefully crafted piece of legislation. It is obviously necessary, as has become evident to most people who have taken the time to either see this smut--and I use that word very advisedly because it does not begin to describe the bestiality and the sexual perverts that have invaded this system, primarily to make money.
  The courts have continually held that we have the right to do something in the courts when we have this kind of material in full swing. We had a hearing in the Commerce Committee today, primarily on violence on television. The people are justifiably upset about that. We also talked today about the large amount of sex and suggested sex that is being thrown at our children today. The Exon-Coats proposal with regard to our Internet system is an important step in the right direction. And as more and more people look at it, and as more and more people recognize all of the lies that are being told about this piece of legislation--simply untruths designed and planted in many publications by those who want the pornographers to run at will and be available at will to our children on the Internet.
  Mr. President, I think this is a step in the right direction. I have personally hand delivered a copy of this letter that I had printed in the Record to the Attorney General of the United States, Janet Reno. I have had a personal conversation with the Vice President of the United States about this today. He was very much interested in this letter. I faxed the letter to him. In addition thereto, I have had delivered today to the White House itself, to the attention of the President, this well-thought-out letter that adequately and honestly describes the well-thought-out Exon-Coats amendment. I only hope that the Members of the House of Representatives will awaken. I think too many of them have been misled and lied to about the communications decency amendment. I hope it becomes law.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
==Schedule of Debate on Cox-Wyden Amendment==
==Schedule of Debate on Cox-Wyden Amendment==
  2-3. Cox (CA), Wyden (OR)--Insert a new section 104 protecting from liability those providers and users seeking to clean up the Internet and prohibiting the FCC from imposing content or any regulation of the Internet. (20 minutes)
  2-3. Cox (CA), Wyden (OR)--Insert a new section 104 protecting from liability those providers and users seeking to clean up the Internet and prohibiting the FCC from imposing content or any regulation of the Internet. (20 minutes)
Line 256: Line 186:
     media for a variety of political,  
     media for a variety of political,  


  Page H 8469
[[Page H 8469]]
     educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
     educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
       ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
       ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
Line 366: Line 296:
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the Cox-Wyden amendment. In beginning, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for the chance to work with him. I think we all come here because we are most interested in policy issues, and the opportunity I have had to work with the gentleman from California has really been a special pleasure, and I want to thank him for it. I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], our ranking minority member, for the many courtesies he has shown, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and, as always, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] have been very helpful and cooperative on this effort.
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of the Cox-Wyden amendment. In beginning, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for the chance to work with him. I think we all come here because we are most interested in policy issues, and the opportunity I have had to work with the gentleman from California has really been a special pleasure, and I want to thank him for it. I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], our ranking minority member, for the many courtesies he has shown, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and, as always, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] have been very helpful and cooperative on this effort.
   Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the Internet is the shining star of the information age, and Government censors must not be allowed to spoil its promise. We are all against smut and pornography, and, as the parents of two small computer-literate children, my wife and I have seen our kids find their way into these chat rooms that make their middle-aged parents cringe. So let us all stipulate right at the outset the importance of protecting our kids and going to the issue of the best way to do it.
   Mr. Chairman and colleagues, the Internet is the shining star of the information age, and Government censors must not be allowed to spoil its promise. We are all against smut and pornography, and, as the parents of two small computer-literate children, my wife and I have seen our kids find their way into these chat rooms that make their middle-aged parents cringe. So let us all stipulate right at the outset the importance of protecting our kids and going to the issue of the best way to do it.
   The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I are here to say that we believe that parents and families are better suited to guard the portals of cyberspace and protect our children than our Government bureaucrats. Parents can get relief now from the smut on the Internet by making a quick trip to the neighborhood computer store where they can purchase reasonably priced software that blocks out the pornography on the Internet. I brought some of this technology to the floor, a couple of the products that are reasonably priced and available, simply to make clear to our colleagues that it is possible for our parents now to child-proof the family computer with these products available in the private sector.
   The gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I are here to say that webelieve that parents and families are better suited to guard the portals of cyberspace and protect our children than our Government bureaucrats. Parents can get relief now from the smut on the Internet by making a quick trip to the neighborhood computer store where they can purchase reasonably priced software that blocks out the pornography on the Internet. I brought some of this technology to the floor, a couple of the products that are reasonably priced and available, simply to make clear to our colleagues that it is possible for our parents now to child-proof the family computer with these products available in the private sector.
   Now what the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I have proposed does stand in sharp contrast to the work of the other body. They seek there to try to put in place the Government rather than the private sector about this task of trying to define indecent communications and protecting our kids. In my view that approach, the approach of the other body, will essentially involve the Federal Government spending vast sums of money trying to define elusive terms that are going to lead to a flood of legal challenges while our kids are unprotected. The fact of the matter is that the Internet operates worldwide, and not even a Federal Internet censorship army would give our Government the power to keep offensive material out of the hands of children who use the new interactive media, and I would say to my colleagues that, if there is this kind of Federal Internet censorship army that somehow the other body seems to favor, it is going to make the Keystone Cops look like crackerjack crime-fighter.
   Now what the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and I have proposed does stand in sharp contrast to the work of the other body. They seek there to try to put in place the Government rather than the private sector about this task of trying to define indecent communications and protecting our kids. In my view that approach, the approach of the other body, will essentially involve the Federal Government spending vast sums of money trying to define elusive terms that are going to lead to a flood of legal challenges while our kids are unprotected. The fact of the matter is that the Internet operates worldwide, and not even a Federal Internet censorship army would give our Government the power to keep offensive material out of the hands of children who use the new interactive media, and I would say to my colleagues that, if there is this kind of Federal Internet censorship army that somehow the other body seems to favor, it is going to make the Keystone Cops look like crackerjack crime-fighter.
   Mr. Chairman, the new media is simply different. We have the opportunity to build a 21st century policy for the Internet employing the technologies and the creativity designed by the private sector.
   Mr. Chairman, the new media is simply different. We have the opportunity to build a 21st century policy for the Internet employing the technologies and the creativity designed by the private sector.
Line 381: Line 311:
   It is my hope and understanding that we can work together in pursuing technology based solutions to the problems  
   It is my hope and understanding that we can work together in pursuing technology based solutions to the problems  


  Page H 8471
  [[Page H 8471]]
  we face in dealing with controlling the transfer of obscene materials in cyberspace.
  we face in dealing with controlling the transfer of obscene materials in cyberspace.
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Line 417: Line 347:
   The Cox-Wyden amendment removes the liability of providers such as Prodigy who currently make a good faith effort to edit the smut  
   The Cox-Wyden amendment removes the liability of providers such as Prodigy who currently make a good faith effort to edit the smut  


  Page H 8472
  [[Page H 8472]]
  from their systems. It also encourages the online services industry to develop new technology, such as blocking software, to empower parents to monitor and control the information their kids can access. And, it is important to note that under this amendment existing laws prohibiting the transmission of child pornography and obscenity will continue to be enforced.
  from their systems. It also encourages the online services industry to develop new technology, such as blocking software, to empower parents to monitor and control the information their kids can access. And, it is important to note that under this amendment existing laws prohibiting the transmission of child pornography and obscenity will continue to be enforced.
   The Cox-Wyden amendment empowers parents without Federal regulation. It allows parents to make the important decisions with regard to what their children can access, not the government. It doesn't violate free speech or the right of adults to communicate with each other. That's the right approach and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
   The Cox-Wyden amendment empowers parents without Federal regulation. It allows parents to make the important decisions with regard to what their children can access, not the government. It doesn't violate free speech or the right of adults to communicate with each other. That's the right approach and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Line 424: Line 354:
   The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
   The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
   Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
   Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
==Vote on Cox-Wyden Amendment==
==Vote on Cox-Wyden Amendment==
[See https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1995631 for party statistics]
[See https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1995631 for party statistics]
Line 759: Line 688:
     Regula
     Regula


Page H 8479
[[Page H 8479]]


     Richardson
     Richardson
Line 991: Line 920:
     software or other techniques to permit user control over  
     software or other techniques to permit user control over  
     offensive material.''.
     offensive material.''.
==House Rejects Senate Version of Bill and Substitutes Its Own==
                  motion offered by mr. bliley


  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 207, I offer a motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Mr. Bliley moves to strike out all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill, S. 652, and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 1555 as passed by the House, as follows:
[...]
SEC. 104. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.
      Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201
    et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
    section:
    ``SEC. 230. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF
                  OFFENSIVE MATERIAL; FCC REGULATION OF COMPUTER
                  SERVICES PROHIBITED.
      ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
      ``(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
    interactive computer services available to individual
    Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the
    availability of educational and informational resources to
    our citizens.
      ``(2) These services offer users a great degree of control
    over the information that they receive, as well as the
    potential for even greater control in the future as
    technology develops.
      ``(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services
    offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,
    unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
    avenues for intellectual activity.
      ``(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services
    have flourished, to the benefit of
Page H 9988
    all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
      ``(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive
    media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and
    entertainment services.
      ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
      ``(1) promote the continued development of the Internet and
    other interactive computer services and other interactive
    media;
      ``(2) preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
    presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
    computer services, unfettered by State or Federal regulation;
      ``(3) encourage the development of technologies which
    maximize user control over the information received by
    individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and
    other interactive computer services;
      ``(4) remove disincentives for the development and
    utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that
    empower parents to restrict their children's access to
    objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
      ``(5) ensure vigorous enforcement of criminal laws to deter
    and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment
    by means of computer.
      ``(c) Protection for `Good Samaritan' Blocking and
    Screening of Offensive Material.--No provider or user of
    interactive computer services shall be treated as the
    publisher or speaker of any information provided by an
    information content provider. No provider or user of
    interactive computer services shall be held liable on account
    of--
      ``(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to
    restrict access to material that the provider or user
    considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
    excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,
    whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
    or
      ``(2) any action taken to make available to information
    content providers or others the technical means to restrict
    access to material described in paragraph (1).
      ``(d) FCC Regulation of the Internet and Other Interactive
    Computer Services Prohibited.--Nothing in this Act shall be
    construed to grant any jurisdiction or authority to the
    Commission with respect to content or any other regulation of
    the Internet or other interactive computer services.
      ``(e) Effect on Other Laws.--
      ``(1) No effect on criminal law.--Nothing in this section
    shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223
    of this Act, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110
    (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18,
    United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.
      ``(2) No effect on intellectual property law.--Nothing in
    this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law
    pertaining to intellectual property.
      ``(3) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
    construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law
    that is consistent with this section.
      ``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
      ``(1) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the
    international computer network of both Federal and non-
    Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
      ``(2) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive
    computer service' means any information service that provides
    computer access to multiple users via modem to a remote
    computer server, including specifically a service that
    provides access to the Internet.
      ``(3) Information content provider.--The term `information
    content provider' means any person or entity that is
    responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or
    development of information provided by the Internet or any
    other interactive computer service, including any person or
    entity that creates or develops blocking or screening
    software or other techniques to permit user control over
    offensive material.
      ``(4) Information service.--The term `information service'
    means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring,
    storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or
    making available information via telecommunications, and
    includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use
    of any such capability for the management, control, or
    operation of a telecommunications system or the management of
    a telecommunications service.''.
==Senate Urged to Let Cox-Wyden Stand in Final Bill==
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Senate appointed Members to the House-Senate conference committee on telecommunications reform. The historic nature of this legislation and its effect on the lives of every citizen of this country goes well beyond the issues associated with regulation of telephony, cable rates, and other forms of communications. Mr. President, this legislation has dramatic implications for the first amendment rights of every American.
  Mr. President, I am referring to the precedent-setting provisions in S. 652 and H.R. 1555 regarding indecency on the Internet. I am here today to urge each Senate conferee to take the first amendment issues of these bills seriously and to consider the ramifications of these provisions not just for speech on the Internet but for all speech in this country. During conference deliberations, I urge Senate conferees to strike the potentially unconstitutional provisions regarding on-line indecency contained in both the Senate and House versions of this legislation.
  The issue of Government censorship of the Internet is a critical first amendment matter. Guaranteeing the Internet is free of speech restrictions, other than the statutory restrictions on obscenity and pornography on the Internet which already exist, should be of concern to all Americans who want to be able to freely discuss issues of importance to them regardless of whether others might view those statements as offensive or distasteful.
  Specifically, Mr. President, the Exon-Coats amendment, added to S. 652 on the Senate floor, included provisions which I believe violate the first amendment rights of Internet users and will have a chilling effect on further economic and technological development of this exciting new form of
Page S 15153
telecommunications. When this matter was considered on the Senate floor, I urged my colleagues to reject the Exon-Coats amendment in favor of legislation requiring the Department of Justice to carefully study the applicability of existing obscenity statutes to computer networks, which Senator Leahy and I offered as an alternative.
  Specifically I have objected to the indecency provisions of S. 652 for the following reasons:
  First, indecent speech, unlike obscenity, is protected under the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution; second, an outright ban on indecent speech on computer networks is not the least restrictive means of protecting children from exposure to such speech on the Internet. There are a number of existing tools available today to allow parents to protect their children from materials which they find inappropriate; third, a ban on indecent speech to minors on the Internet will unnecessarily require adults to self-censor their communications on the Internet; fourth, since indecency will be defined by community standards, protected speech by adults will be diminished to what might be considered decent in the most conservative community in the United States and to what might be appropriate for very young children; fifth, the on-line indecency provisions will establish different standards for the same material that appears in print and on the computer screen. Works that are completely legal in the bookstore or on the library shelf would be criminal if transmitted over computer networks; sixth, the Supreme Court has ruled that the degree to which content can be regulated depends on the characteristics of the media. The unique nature of interactive media must be considered when determining how best to protect children. S. 652 ignores the degree to which users have control over the materials to which they are exposed as well as the decentralized nature of interactive technology which liken it more to print media than broadcast media.
  Mr. President, the Senate was not alone in its rush to judgment on the controversial and highly emotional issue of pornography accessed via computer networks. Section 403 of H.R. 1555, known as the Hyde amendment, raises equally serious concerns with respect to the first amendment and appears antithetical to other provisions contained in the House bill. The prohibitions against on-line indecency contained in the Hyde language will have a similar chilling effect on the on-line communications of adults. The Hyde amendment is also inconsistent with the more market oriented and less intrusive provisions of section 104 of H.R. 1555, the On-Line Family Empowerment Act introduced by Congressmen Cox and Wyden, as adopted by the House. Section 104 recognizes that first amendment protections must apply to on-line communications by prohibiting FCC content regulation of the Internet. The Cox-Wyden provisions also promote the use of existing technology to empower parents to protect their children from objectionable materials on the Internet, and encourages on-line service providers to self-police offensive communications over their private services.
  In addition, the Hyde amendment is incompatible with the pro-first amendment provisions of section 110 of H.R. 1555, which requires a report by the Department of Justice [DOJ] on existing criminal obscenity and child pornography statutes and their applicability to cyber-crime. Section 110 also requires an evaluation of the technical means available to enable parents to exercise control over the information that their children receive on the Internet. Perhaps most significantly, section 110 embraces the application of first amendment speech protections to interactive media. H.R. 1555, while embracing the principles of restraint with respect to new criminal sanctions on protected speech and the promotion of a free-market parental empowerment approach, simultaneously ignores both of those axioms with the Hyde provision. By imposing new criminal sanctions on indecent speech and amending existing criminal statutes, the Hyde amendment rushes to judgment before the DOJ study has even begun.
  Mr. President, recently the Senate Judiciary Committee held the first ever congressional hearing on the issue of cyberporn. Based on the testimony of the witnesses, which included parents as well as victims of cyberporn, it became clear that the objectionable communications on the Internet are already covered by existing criminal statutes. The concerns raised at the hearing centered upon trafficking of child pornography, the proliferation of obscenity, and the solicitation and victimization of minors via the Internet. However, those offenses are already violations of criminal law. Indeed, recent press accounts indicate that law enforcement officers are already aggressively prosecuting on-line users for violations of criminal law relating to obscenity and child pornography.
  It is critical that we use law enforcement resources to prosecute criminal activity conducted via the Internet and not be distracted by the issue of indecency which has not been identified as a serious concern by users or parents. It was clear, during our recent Senate hearing, that the witnesses' concerns about the Internet did not relate to indecent speech or the so-called seven dirty words. It is incumbent upon Congress to wait for the results of the study required by H.R. 1555 before embracing overly restrictive, potentially unnecessary, and possibly unconstitutional prohibitions on indecent speech contained in both versions of telecommunications reform legislation.
  Mr. President, I urge the conference committee to reject the Exon-Coats and Hyde provisions during its deliberations and to maintain the Cox-Wyden amendment adopted overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives. If the United States is to ever fully realize the benefits of interactive telecommunications technology, we cannot allow the heavy hand of Congress to unduly interfere with communications on this medium.
  Furthermore, Mr. President, I urge Senate conferees to recognize that if the first amendment has any relevancy at all in the 1990's, it must be applied to speech on the Internet. As Members of this body sworn to uphold the Constitution we cannot take a cafeteria style approach to the first amendment, protecting the same speech in some forms of media and not in others. Shifting political views about what types of speech are viewed as distasteful should not be allowed to determine what is or is not an appropriate use of electronic communications. While the current target of our political climate is indecent speech--the so-called seven dirty words--a weakening of first amendment protections could lead to the censorship of other crucial types of speech, including religious expression and political dissent.
  I believe the censorship of the Internet is a perilous road for the Congress to walk down. It sets a dangerous precedent for first amendment protections and it is unclear where that road will end.
==As Reported from Conference Committee==
==As Reported from Conference Committee==
[The Senate received an identical report, which will for obvious reasons not be duplicated. Since it is now January 1996, page numbers are now those of Volume 142 of the Congressional Record]
[The Senate received an identical report, which will for obvious reasons not be duplicated. Since it is now January 1996, page numbers are now those of Volume 142 of the Congressional Record]
Line 1,134: Line 930:


     Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
     Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
[Definition of "access software provider" added; inconsistent state and local laws preempted; communications privacy laws explicitly declared not to be affected. Subsection (c) divided into two paragraphs, but reference in new paragraph (2) to "paragraph (1)", now subparagraph (A), inadvertently left in place]
[Definition of "access software provider" added; inconsistent state and local laws preempted; communications privacy laws explicitly declared not to be affected]


  ``SEC. 230. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE  
  ``SEC. 230. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF OFFENSIVE  
Line 1,412: Line 1,208:
                 content.''.
                 content.''.
==As Currently Printed in US Code==
==As Currently Printed in US Code==
[Executive Documents note has been omitted]
  §230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
  §230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
(a) Findings


(a) Findings
  The Congress finds the following:
  The Congress finds the following:


Line 1,426: Line 1,224:


  (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
  (5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) Policy


(b) Policy
  It is the policy of the United States-
  It is the policy of the United States-


Line 1,439: Line 1,237:


  (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
  (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
  (c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material
  (c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker


(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
  No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
  No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability


(2) Civil liability
  No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-
  No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-


  (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
  (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or


  (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).<ref>So in original. Probably should be "subparagraph (A)."</ref>
  (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).1
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service


(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
  A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
  A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
  (e) Effect on other laws
  (e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law


(1) No effect on criminal law
  Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
  Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law


(2) No effect on intellectual property law
  Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
  Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law


(3) State law
  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
  Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law


(4) No effect on communications privacy law
  Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
  Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5) No effect on sex trafficking law


(5) No effect on sex trafficking law
  Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit-
  Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit-


Line 1,477: Line 1,273:


  (C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant's promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
  (C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant's promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f) Definitions


(f) Definitions
  As used in this section:
  As used in this section:
(1) Internet


(1) Internet
  The term "Internet" means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
  The term "Internet" means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2) Interactive computer service


(2) Interactive computer service
  The term "interactive computer service" means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
  The term "interactive computer service" means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3) Information content provider


(3) Information content provider
  The term "information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
  The term "information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4) Access software provider


(4) Access software provider
  The term "access software provider" means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
  The term "access software provider" means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:


Line 1,502: Line 1,298:


  Editorial Notes
  Editorial Notes
References in Text


References in Text
  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, referred to in subsec. (e)(4), is Pub. L. 99–508, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1848 , as amended. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 2510 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and Tables.
  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, referred to in subsec. (e)(4), is Pub. L. 99–508, Oct. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 1848 , as amended. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1986 Amendment note set out under section 2510 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and Tables.
Codification


Codification
  Section 509 of Pub. L. 104–104, which directed amendment of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) by adding section 230 at end, was executed by adding the section at end of part I of title II of the Act to reflect the probable intent of Congress and amendments by sections 101(a), (b), and 151(a) of Pub. L. 104–104 designating §§201 to 229 as part I and adding parts II (§251 et seq.) and III (§271 et seq.) to title II of the Act.
  Section 509 of Pub. L. 104–104, which directed amendment of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) by adding section 230 at end, was executed by adding the section at end of part I of title II of the Act to reflect the probable intent of Congress and amendments by sections 101(a), (b), and 151(a) of Pub. L. 104–104 designating §§201 to 229 as part I and adding parts II (§251 et seq.) and III (§271 et seq.) to title II of the Act.
  Amendments
  Amendments


Line 1,520: Line 1,315:


  Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
  Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2018 Amendment


Effective Date of 2018 Amendment
  Pub. L. 115–164, §4(b), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254 , provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 11, 2018], and the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before, on, or after such date of enactment."
  Pub. L. 115–164, §4(b), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254 , provided that: "The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Apr. 11, 2018], and the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before, on, or after such date of enactment."
Effective Date of 1998 Amendment


Effective Date of 1998 Amendment
  Amendment by Pub. L. 105–277 effective 30 days after Oct. 21, 1998, see section 1406 of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 223 of this title.
  Amendment by Pub. L. 105–277 effective 30 days after Oct. 21, 1998, see section 1406 of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 223 of this title.
Savings


Savings
  Pub. L. 115–164, §7, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1255 , provided that: "Nothing in this Act [see Short Title of 2018 Amendment note set out under section 1 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure] or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to limit or preempt any civil action or criminal prosecution under Federal law or State law (including State statutory law and State common law) filed before or after the day before the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 11, 2018] that was not limited or preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), as such section was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act."
  Pub. L. 115–164, §7, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1255 , provided that: "Nothing in this Act [see Short Title of 2018 Amendment note set out under section 1 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure] or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to limit or preempt any civil action or criminal prosecution under Federal law or State law (including State statutory law and State common law) filed before or after the day before the date of enactment of this Act [Apr. 11, 2018] that was not limited or preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), as such section was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act."
Sense of Congress


Sense of Congress
  Pub. L. 115–164, §2, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1253 , provided that: "It is the sense of Congress that-
  Pub. L. 115–164, §2, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1253 , provided that: "It is the sense of Congress that-


Line 1,538: Line 1,333:


  "(3) clarification of such section is warranted to ensure that such section does not provide such protection to such websites."
  "(3) clarification of such section is warranted to ensure that such section does not provide such protection to such websites."
Executive Documents
Executive Order No. 13925
Ex. Ord. No. 13925, May 28, 2020, 85 F.R. 34079, which related to moderation of content posted on social media platforms, was revoked by Ex. Ord. No. 14029, §1, May 14, 2021, 86 F.R. 27025.
[[Category:Law]]
Please note that all contributions to Bibliotheca Anonoma are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (see Bibliotheca Anonoma:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.bibanon.org/Source_Documents_in_the_Legislative_History_of_Section_230"