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 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
==Schedule of Debate on Cox-Wyden Amendment==
    length of this letter, but much misinformation needs to be
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)
    corrected and this is an issue of utmost importance to
==Cox-Wyden Amendment (IFFEA consolidated with it)==
    America's children and families. You have been lied to. I'd
[The page numbers in this text are of Volume 141 of the Congressional Record]
    like to give you my views on the pornographer's propaganda
              amendment offered by mr. cox of california
    and offer an explanation of the true meaning of the Exon-
 
    Coats amendment dealing with computer assisted obscenity and
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 2-3.
    the problem of indecency being made available to minors.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
       A review of your proposed legislation to protect the  
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
     computer information service providers shows that you are
 
    trying to accomplish the same objectives as the Senate
      Amendment number 2-3 offered by Mr. Cox of California:'
     version of the communications decency amendment (``CDA'').
       Page 78, before line 18, insert the following new section
      Whatever you may have been led to believe about the ``Exon-
     (and redesignate the succeeding sections and conform the  
     Coats amendment'' is obviously incorrect. The Senate bill
     table of contents accordingly):
    accomplishes the same benefits and protections your
[Subsection (d) in this draft was not in the final law]
     proposed bill seeks to provide. However, I feel your bill,
     SEC. 104. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.
    in giving immunity and a defense without a corresponding
 
    offense, will have the opposite effect to that which you
      Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201
     seek.
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
     section:


  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:
    ``SEC. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF
                  OFFENSIVE MATERIAL; FCC REGULATION OF COMPUTER
                  SERVICES PROHIBITED.


       The communications decency amendment is a good, fair, and
       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
    constitutional proposal. You and your colleagues have been
      ``(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
    lied to about what it would do and what it provides. I trust
     interactive computer services available to individual
    that you seek a proper blend of law and private action and I
     Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the  
     trust in your instincts to see through the smoke. Without a
     availability of educational and informational resources to  
     law, the computer nets will continue to be abused by the  
     our citizens.
     purveyors of hard-core obscenity and it will continue to be a
      ``(2) These services offer users a great degree of control
     place in which responsible adults should fear to let their
     over the information that they receive, as well as the  
    children play. A law that does not prohibit unlawful
     potential for even greater control in the future as
     materials is no law at all to the pornography syndicates,  
     technology develops.
    their associates, and the addicted customers. An overly
       ``(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services
     strict law would not be tolerated by the courts, for fear of
     offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,
     an unconstitutional prior restraint.
     unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
       There is no reasonable doubt that only a carefully worded
     avenues for intellectual activity.
    and first amendment sensitive statute will survive the legal
       ``(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services
    challenges of the ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology,
     have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a
    Electronic Frontier Foundation, and some commercial
     minimum of government regulation.
    pornographic companies will mount. The CDA can withstand the
      ``(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive
    tests to be applied, no other proposal can make that claim.
     media for a variety of political,  
     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.
[[Page H 8469]]
  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.
    educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
  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.
      ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
  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.
      ``(1) promote the continued development of the Internet and  
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
    other interactive computer services and other interactive
==Schedule of Debate on Cox-Wyden Amendment==
    media;
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) preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that  
==Cox-Wyden Amendment (IFFEA consolidated with it)==
    presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
[The page numbers in this text are of Volume 141 of the Congressional Record]
    computer services, unfettered by State or Federal regulation;
              amendment offered by mr. cox of california
      ``(3) encourage the development of technologies which
 
    maximize user control over the information received by
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment numbered 2-3.
    individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and  
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
    other interactive computer services;
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
      ``(4) remove disincentives for the development and  
 
    utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that  
       Amendment number 2-3 offered by Mr. Cox of California:'
    empower parents to restrict their children's access to  
       Page 78, before line 18, insert the following new section
    objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
    (and redesignate the succeeding sections and conform the  
      ``(5) ensure vigorous enforcement of criminal laws to deter
     table of contents accordingly):
    and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment
[Subsection (d) in this draft was not in the final law]
    by means of computer.
     SEC. 104. ONLINE FAMILY EMPOWERMENT.
      ``(c) Protection for `Good Samaritan' Blocking and
 
    Screening of Offensive Material.--No provider or user of
      Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 201
    interactive computer services shall be treated as the  
     et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new
    publisher or speaker of any information provided by an
     section:
    information content provider. No provider or user of  
 
    interactive computer services shall be held liable on account
     ``SEC. PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE BLOCKING AND SCREENING OF
    of--
                  OFFENSIVE MATERIAL; FCC REGULATION OF COMPUTER
      ``(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to
                  SERVICES PROHIBITED.
    restrict access to material that the provider or user
 
    considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
       ``(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
    excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,
      ``(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other
    whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
     interactive computer services available to individual
    or
    Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the
      ``(2) any action taken to make available to information
    availability of educational and informational resources to
    content providers or others the technical means to restrict
    our citizens.
    access to material described in paragraph (1).
       ``(2) These services offer users a great degree of control
      ``(d) FCC Regulation of the Internet and Other Interactive
     over the information that they receive, as well as the
    Computer Services Prohibited.--Nothing in this Act shall be
     potential for even greater control in the future as
    construed to grant any jurisdiction or authority to the  
    technology develops.
    Commission with respect to content or any other regulation of  
       ``(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services
    the Internet or other interactive computer services.
     offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse,
       ``(e) Effect on Other Laws.--
     unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad
       ``(1) No effect on criminal law.--Nothing in this section
     avenues for intellectual activity.
    shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223
       ``(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services
     of this Act, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110
     have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a
     (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18,
     minimum of government regulation.
     United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.
      ``(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive  
      ``(2) No effect on intellectual property law.--Nothing in
     media for a variety of political,
     this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law
 
     pertaining to intellectual property.
  Page H 8469
       ``(3) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
     educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
    construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law
       ``(b) Policy.--It is the policy of the United States to--
     that is consistent with this section.
      ``(1) promote the continued development of the Internet and  
      ``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
     other interactive computer services and other interactive
       ``(1) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the
     media;
     international computer network of both Federal and non-
      ``(2) preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
     Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
     presently exists for the Internet and other interactive
       ``(2) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive  
    computer services, unfettered by State or Federal regulation;
     computer service' means any information service that provides
      ``(3) encourage the development of technologies which
    computer access to multiple users via modem to a remote
    maximize user control over the information received by
     computer server, including specifically a service that
    individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and
     provides access to the Internet.
    other interactive computer services;
       ``(3) Information content provider.--The term `information
      ``(4) remove disincentives for the development and
     content provider' means any person or entity that is
    utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that
    responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or
    empower parents to restrict their children's access to  
     development of information provided by the Internet or any
    objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
    other interactive computer service, including any person or
      ``(5) ensure vigorous enforcement of criminal laws to deter
     entity that creates or develops blocking or screening
    and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment
    software or other techniques to permit user control over
    by means of computer.
     offensive material.
      ``(c) Protection for `Good Samaritan' Blocking and  
       ``(4) Information service.--The term `information service'
    Screening of Offensive Material.--No provider or user of
    means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring,
    interactive computer services shall be treated as the  
    storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or
    publisher or speaker of any information provided by an
    making available information via telecommunications, and  
    information content provider. No provider or user of  
     includes electronic publishing, but does not include any use
    interactive computer services shall be held liable on account
     of any such capability for the management, control, or
    of--
    operation of a telecommunications system or the management of
      ``(1) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to
     a telecommunications service.''.
    restrict access to material that the provider or user
 
    considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
    excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,  
[Mr. Cox] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will
    whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
be recognized for 10 minutes. Who seeks time in opposition?
    or
 
      ``(2) any action taken to make available to information
[Here, nobody asked for opposition, so the Speaker gave the 10 minutes to Wyden to also speak in support of the amendment.]
    content providers or others the technical means to restrict
         
    access to material described in paragraph (1).
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], who has worked so hard and so diligently on this effort with all of our colleagues.
      ``(d) FCC Regulation of the Internet and Other Interactive
  We are talking about the Internet now, not about telephones, not about television or radios, not about cable TV, not about broadcasting, but in technological terms and historical terms, an absolutely brand-new technology.
    Computer Services Prohibited.--Nothing in this Act shall be
  The Internet is a fascinating place and many of us have recently become acquainted with all that it holds for us in terms of education and political discourse.
    construed to grant any jurisdiction or authority to the  
  We want to make sure that everyone in America has an open invitation and feels welcome to participate in the Internet. But as you know, there is some reason for people to be wary because, as a Time Magazine cover story recently highlighted, there is in this vast world of computer information, a literal computer library, some offensive material, some things in the bookstore, if you will, that our children ought not to see.
    Commission with respect to content or any other regulation of
  As the parent of two, I want to make sure that my children have access to this future and that I do not have to worry about what they might be running into on line. I would like to keep that out of my house and off of my computer. How should we do this?
    the Internet or other interactive computer services.
  Some have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we take the Federal Communications Commission and turn it into the Federal Computer Commission, that we hire even more bureaucrats and more regulators who will attempt, either civilly or criminally, to punish people by catching them in the act of putting something into cyberspace.
      ``(e) Effect on Other Laws.--
  Frankly, there is just too much going on on the Internet for that to be effective. No matter how big the army of bureaucrats, it is not going to protect my kids because I do not think the Federal Government will get there in time. Certainly, criminal enforcement of our obscenity laws as an adjunct is a useful way of punishing the truly guilty.
      ``(1) No effect on criminal law.--Nothing in this section
  Mr. Chairman, what we want are results. We want to make sure we do something that actually works. Ironically, the existing legal system provides a massive disincentive for the people who might best help us control the Internet to do so.
    shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223
  I will give you two quick examples: A Federal court in New York, in a case involving CompuServe, one of our on-line service providers, held that CompuServe would not be liable in a defamation case because it was not the publisher or editor of the material. It just let everything come onto your computer without, in any way, trying to screen it or control it.
    of this Act, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110
  But another New York court, the New York Supreme Court, held that Prodigy, CompuServe's competitor, could be held liable in a $200 million defamation case because someone had posted on one of their bulletin boards, a financial bulletin board, some remarks that apparently were untrue about an investment bank, that the investment bank would go out of business and was run by crooks.
    (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18,
  Prodigy said, ``No, no; just like CompuServe, we did not control or edit that information, nor could we, frankly. We have over 60,000 of these messages each day, we have over 2 million subscribers, and so you cannot proceed with this kind of a case against us.''
    United States Code, or any other Federal criminal statute.
  The court said, ``No, no, no, no, you are different; you are different than CompuServe because you are a family-friendly network. You advertise yourself as such. You employ screening and blocking software that keeps obscenity off of your network. You have people who are hired to exercise an emergency delete function to keep that kind of
      ``(2) No effect on intellectual property law.--Nothing in
 
    this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law
Page H 8470
    pertaining to intellectual property.
 
      ``(3) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
material away from your subscribers. You don't permit nudity on your  system. You have content guidelines. You, therefore, are going to face higher, stricter liability because you tried to exercise some control over offensive material.''
    construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law
 
    that is consistent with this section.
                              {time}  1015
      ``(f) Definitions.--As used in this section:
  Mr. Chairman, that is backward. We want to encourage people like Prodigy, like CompuServe, like America Online, like the new Microsoft network, to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see. This technology is very quickly becoming available, and in fact every one of us will be able to tailor what we see to our own tastes.
      ``(1) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the
  We can go much further, Mr. Chairman, than blocking obscenity or indecency, whatever that means in its loose interpretations. We can keep away from our children things not only prohibited by law, but prohibited by parents. That is where we should be headed, and that is what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and I are doing.
    international computer network of both Federal and non-
  Mr. Chairman, our amendment will do two basic things: First, it will protect computer Good Samaritans, online service providers, anyone who provides a front end to the Internet, let us say, who takes steps to screen indecency and offensive material for their customers. It will protect them from taking on liability such as occurred in the Prodigy case in New York that they should not face for helping us and for helping us solve this problem. Second, it will establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the Federal Government of what is on the Internet, that we do not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet because frankly the Internet has grown up to be what it is without that kind of help from the Government. In this fashion we can encourage what is right now the most energetic technological revolution that any of us has ever witnessed. We can make it better. We can make sure that it operates more quickly to solve our problem of keeping pornography away from our kids, keeping offensive material away from our kids, and I am very excited about it.
    Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
  There are other ways to address this problem, some of which run head-on into our approach. About those let me simply say that there is a well-known road paved with good intentions. We all know where it leads. The message today should be from this Congress we embrace this new technology, we welcome the opportunity for education and political discourse that it offers for all of us. We want to help it along this time by saying Government is going to get out of the way and let parents and individuals control it rather than Government doing that job for us.
      ``(2) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
    computer service' means any information service that provides
  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.
    computer access to multiple users via modem to a remote
  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.
    computer server, including specifically a service that
  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.
    provides access to the Internet.
  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.
      ``(3) Information content provider.--The term `information
  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.
    content provider' means any person or entity that is
  I hope my colleagues will support the amendment offered by gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and myself, and I reserve the balance of my time.
    responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
    development of information provided by the Internet or any
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
    other interactive computer service, including any person or
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this is a very good amendment. There is no question that we are having an explosion of information on the emerging superhighway. Unfortunately part of that information is of a nature that we do not think would be suitable for our children to see on our PC screens in our homes.
    entity that creates or develops blocking or screening
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] have worked hard to put together a reasonable way to provide those providers of the information to help them self-regulate themselves without penalty of law. I think it is a much better approach than the approach that has been taken in the Senate by the Exon amendment. I would hope that we would support this version in our bill in the House and then try to get the House-Senate conference to adopt the Cox-Wyden language.
    software or other techniques to permit user control over
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is a good piece of legislation, a good amendment, and I hope we can pass it unanimously in the body.
    offensive material.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner] who has also worked hard in this area.
      ``(4) Information service.--The term `information service'
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] in a brief colloquy.
    means the offering of a capability for generating, acquiring,
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's efforts, as well as those of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], to address the problem of children having untraceable access through on-line computer services to inappropriate and obscene pornographic materials available on the Internet.
    storing, transforming, processing, retrieving, utilizing, or
  Telephone companies must inform us as to whom our long distance calls are made. I believe that if computer on-line services were to include itemized billing, it would be a practical solution which would inform parents as to what materials their children are accessing on the Internet.
    making available information via telecommunications, and
  It is my hope and understanding that we can work together in pursuing technology based solutions to the problems
    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.''.


   The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from California
[[Page H 8471]]
[Mr. Cox] will be recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will  
we face in dealing with controlling the transfer of obscene materials in cyberspace.
be recognized for 10 minutes. Who seeks time in opposition?
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
 
  Ms. DANNER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
[Here, nobody asked for opposition, so the Speaker gave the 10 minutes to Wyden to also speak in support of the amendment.]
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her comments, and we will certainly take this up with some of the private-sector firms that are working in this area.
         
   Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White].
   Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin by thanking my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden], who has worked so hard and so diligently on this effort with all of our colleagues.
   Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the House that, as my colleagues know, this is a very important issue for me, not only because of our district, but because I have got four small children at home. I got them from age 3 to 11, and I can tell my colleagues I get E-mails on a regular basis from my 11-year-old, and my 9-year-old spends a lot of time surfing the Internet on America Online. This is an important issue to me. I want to be sure we can protect them from the wrong influences on the Internet.
   We are talking about the Internet now, not about telephones, not about television or radios, not about cable TV, not about broadcasting, but in technological terms and historical terms, an absolutely brand-new technology.
  But I have got to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, the last person I want making that decision is the Federal Government. In my district right now there are people developing technology that will allow a parent to sit down and program the Internet to provide just the kind of materials that they want their child to see. That is where this responsibility should be, in the hands of the parent.
  The Internet is a fascinating place and many of us have recently become acquainted with all that it holds for us in terms of education and political discourse.
   That is why I was proud to cosponsor this bill, that is what this bill does, and I urge my colleagues to pass it.
  We want to make sure that everyone in America has an open invitation and feels welcome to participate in the Internet. But as you know, there is some reason for people to be wary because, as a Time Magazine cover story recently highlighted, there is in this vast world of computer information, a literal computer library, some offensive material, some things in the bookstore, if you will, that our children ought not to see.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
   As the parent of two, I want to make sure that my children have access to this future and that I do not have to worry about what they might be running into on line. I would like to keep that out of my house and off of my computer. How should we do this?
   Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I will bet that there are not very many parts of the country where Senator Exon's amendment has been on the front page of the newspaper practically every day, but that is the case in Silicon Valley. I think that is because so many of us got on the Internet early and really understand the technology, and I surf the Net with my 10-year-old and 13-year-old, and I am also concerned about pornography. In fact, earlier this year I offered a life sentence for the creators of child pornography, but Senator Exon's approach is not the right way. Really it is like saying that the mailman is going to be liable when he delivers a plain brown envelope for what is inside it. It will not work. It is a misunderstanding of the technology. The private sector is out giving parents the tools that they have. I am so excited that there is more coming on. I very much endorse the Cox-Wyden amendment, and I would urge its approval so that we preserve the first amendment and open systems on the Net.
   Some have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that we take the Federal Communications Commission and turn it into the Federal Computer Commission, that we hire even more bureaucrats and more regulators who will attempt, either civilly or criminally, to punish people by catching them in the act of putting something into cyberspace.
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Frankly, there is just too much going on on the Internet for that to be effective. No matter how big the army of bureaucrats, it is not going to protect my kids because I do not think the Federal Government will get there in time. Certainly, criminal enforcement of our obscenity laws as an adjunct is a useful way of punishing the truly guilty.
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
   Mr. Chairman, what we want are results. We want to make sure we do something that actually works. Ironically, the existing legal system provides a massive disincentive for the people who might best help us control the Internet to do so.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Cox-Wyden amendment. This will help to solve a very serious problem as we enter into the Internet age. We have the opportunity for every household in America, every family in America, soon to be able to have access to places like the Library of Congress, to have access to other major libraries of the world, universities, major publishers of information, news sources. There is no way that any of those entities, like Prodigy, can take the responsibility to edit out information that is going to be coming in to them from all manner of sources onto their bulletin board. We are talking about something that is far larger than our daily newspaper. We are talking about something that is going to be thousands of pages of information every day, and to have that imposition imposed on them is wrong. This will cure that problem, and I urge the Members to support the amendment.
  I will give you two quick examples: A Federal court in New York, in a case involving CompuServe, one of our on-line service providers, held that CompuServe would not be liable in a defamation case because it was not the publisher or editor of the material. It just let everything come onto your computer without, in any way, trying to screen it or control it.
  But another New York court, the New York Supreme Court, held that Prodigy, CompuServe's competitor, could be held liable in a $200 million defamation case because someone had posted on one of their bulletin boards, a financial bulletin board, some remarks that apparently were untrue about an investment bank, that the investment bank would go out of business and was run by crooks.
  Prodigy said, ``No, no; just like CompuServe, we did not control or edit that information, nor could we, frankly. We have over 60,000 of these messages each day, we have over 2 million subscribers, and so you cannot proceed with this kind of a case against us.''
  The court said, ``No, no, no, no, you are different; you are different than CompuServe because you are a family-friendly network. You advertise yourself as such. You employ screening and blocking software that keeps obscenity off of your network. You have people who are hired to exercise an emergency delete function to keep that kind of


  Page H 8470
                              {time} 1030


material away from your subscribers. You don't permit nudity on your  system. You have content guidelines. You, therefore, are going to face higher, stricter liability because you tried to exercise some control over offensive material.''
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
 
   Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from California for their amendment. It is a significant improvement over the approach of the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon.
                              {time}  1015
  This deals with the reality that the Internet is international, it is computer-based, it has a completely different history and future than anything that we have known thus far, and I support the language. It deals with the content concerns which the gentlemen from Oregon and California have raised.
   Mr. Chairman, that is backward. We want to encourage people like Prodigy, like CompuServe, like America Online, like the new Microsoft network, to do everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see. This technology is very quickly becoming available, and in fact every one of us will be able to tailor what we see to our own tastes.
   Mr. Chairman, the only reservation which I would have is that they add in not only content but also any other type of registration. I think in an era of convergence of technologies where telephone and cable may converge with the Internet at some point and some ways it is important for us to ensure that we will have an opportunity down the line to look at those issues, and my hope is that in the conference committee we will be able to sort those out.
  We can go much further, Mr. Chairman, than blocking obscenity or indecency, whatever that means in its loose interpretations. We can keep away from our children things not only prohibited by law, but prohibited by parents. That is where we should be headed, and that is what the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and I are doing.
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
   Mr. Chairman, our amendment will do two basic things: First, it will protect computer Good Samaritans, online service providers, anyone who provides a front end to the Internet, let us say, who takes steps to screen indecency and offensive material for their customers. It will protect them from taking on liability such as occurred in the Prodigy case in New York that they should not face for helping us and for helping us solve this problem. Second, it will establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the Federal Government of what is on the Internet, that we do not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet because frankly the Internet has grown up to be what it is without that kind of help from the Government. In this fashion we can encourage what is right now the most energetic technological revolution that any of us has ever witnessed. We can make it better. We can make sure that it operates more quickly to solve our problem of keeping pornography away from our kids, keeping offensive material away from our kids, and I am very excited about it.
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take the time to thank him and also the gentleman from California for this fine work. This is a very sensitive area, very complex area, but it is a very important area for the American public, and I just wanted to congratulate him and the gentleman from California on how they worked together in a bipartisan fashion.
  There are other ways to address this problem, some of which run head-on into our approach. About those let me simply say that there is a well-known road paved with good intentions. We all know where it leads. The message today should be from this Congress we embrace this new technology, we welcome the opportunity for education and political discourse that it offers for all of us. We want to help it along this time by saying Government is going to get out of the way and let parents and individuals control it rather than Government doing that job for us.
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his kindness.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
   Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say that the reason that this approach rather than the Senate approach is important is our plan allows us to help American families today.
   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.
   Under our approach and the speed at which these technologies are advancing, the marketplace is going to give parents the tools they need while the Federal Communications Commission is out there cranking out rules about proposed rulemaking programs. Their approach is going to set back the effort to help our families. Our approach allows us to help American families today.
   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. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
   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.
   Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond briefly to the important point in this bill that prohibits the FCC from regulating the Internet. Price regulation is at one with usage of the Internet.
   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.
   We want to make sure that the complicated way that the Internet sends a document to your computer, splitting it up into packets, sending it through myriad computers around the world before it reaches your desk is eventually grasped by technology so that we can price it, and we can price ration usage on the Internet so more and more people can use it without overcrowding it.
  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.
   If we regulate the Internet at the FCC, that will freeze or at least slow down technology. It will threaten the future of the Internet. That is why it is so important that we not have a Federal computer commission do that.
  I hope my colleagues will support the amendment offered by gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] and myself, and I reserve the balance of my time.
   Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Congress has a responsibility to help encourage the private sector to protect our children from being exposed to obscene and indecent material on the Internet. Most parents aren't around all day to monitor what their kids are pulling up on the net, and in fact, parents have a hard time keeping up with their kids' abilities to surf cyberspace. Parents need some help and the Cox-Wyden amendment provides it.
   Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
   The Cox-Wyden amendment is a thoughtful approach to keep smut off the net without government censorship.
   (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
   We have been told it is technologically impossible for interactive service providers to guarantee that no subscriber posts indecent material on their bulletin board services. But that doesn't mean that providers should not be given incentives to police the use of their systems. And software and other measures are available to help screen out this material.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, this is a very good amendment. There is no question that we are having an explosion of information on the emerging superhighway. Unfortunately part of that information is of a nature that we do not think would be suitable for our children to see on our PC screens in our homes.
   Currently, however, there is a tremendous disincentive for online service providers to create family friendly services by detecting and removing objectionable content. These providers face the risk of increased liability where they take reasonable steps to police their systems. A New York judge recently sent the online services the message to stop policing by ruling that Prodigy was subject to a $200 million libel suit simply because it did exercise some control over profanity and indecent material.
   Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] have worked hard to put together a reasonable way to provide those providers of the information to help them self-regulate themselves without penalty of law. I think it is a much better approach than the approach that has been taken in the Senate by the Exon amendment. I would hope that we would support this version in our bill in the House and then try to get the House-Senate conference to adopt the Cox-Wyden language.
  The Cox-Wyden amendment removes the liability of providers such as Prodigy who currently make a good faith effort to edit the smut
   So, Mr. Chairman, it is a good piece of legislation, a good amendment, and I hope we can pass it unanimously in the body.
   Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner] who has also worked hard in this area.
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] in a brief colloquy.
   Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the gentleman's efforts, as well as those of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], to address the problem of children having untraceable access through on-line computer services to inappropriate and obscene pornographic materials available on the Internet.
   Telephone companies must inform us as to whom our long distance calls are made. I believe that if computer on-line services were to include itemized billing, it would be a practical solution which would inform parents as to what materials their children are accessing on the Internet.
   It is my hope and understanding that we can work together in pursuing technology based solutions to the problems


  Page H 8471
  [[Page H 8472]]
  we face in dealing with controlling the transfer of obscene materials in cyberspace.
  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.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
   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.
  Ms. DANNER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  The Chairman. All time on this amendment has expired.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for her comments, and we will certainly take this up with some of the private-sector firms that are working in this area.
   The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White].
   The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
   Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the House that, as my colleagues know, this is a very important issue for me, not only because of our district, but because I have got four small children at home. I got them from age 3 to 11, and I can tell my colleagues I get E-mails on a regular basis from my 11-year-old, and my 9-year-old spends a lot of time surfing the Internet on America Online. This is an important issue to me. I want to be sure we can protect them from the wrong influences on the Internet.
   Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
   But I have got to tell my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, the last person I want making that decision is the Federal Government. In my district right now there are people developing technology that will allow a parent to sit down and program the Internet to provide just the kind of materials that they want their child to see. That is where this responsibility should be, in the hands of the parent.
==Exon Considers Cox-Wyden Supplement, not Substitute For, CDA==
   That is why I was proud to cosponsor this bill, that is what this bill does, and I urge my colleagues to pass it.
[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. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
   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.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I will bet that there are not very many parts of the country where Senator Exon's amendment has been on the front page of the newspaper practically every day, but that is the case in Silicon Valley. I think that is because so many of us got on the Internet early and really understand the technology, and I surf the Net with my 10-year-old and 13-year-old, and I am also concerned about pornography. In fact, earlier this year I offered a life sentence for the creators of child pornography, but Senator Exon's approach is not the right way. Really it is like saying that the mailman is going to be liable when he delivers a plain brown envelope for what is inside it. It will not work. It is a misunderstanding of the technology. The private sector is out giving parents the tools that they have. I am so excited that there is more coming on. I very much endorse the Cox-Wyden amendment, and I would urge its approval so that we preserve the first amendment and open systems on the Net.
  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:
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
   Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of the Cox-Wyden amendment. This will help to solve a very serious problem as we enter into the Internet age. We have the opportunity for every household in America, every family in America, soon to be able to have access to places like the Library of Congress, to have access to other major libraries of the world, universities, major publishers of information, news sources. There is no way that any of those entities, like Prodigy, can take the responsibility to edit out information that is going to be coming in to them from all manner of sources onto their bulletin board. We are talking about something that is far larger than our daily newspaper. We are talking about something that is going to be thousands of pages of information every day, and to have that imposition imposed on them is wrong. This will cure that problem, and I urge the Members to support the amendment.


                              {time}  1030
      Dear Representatives Cox and Wyden: Please excuse the
 
    length of this letter, but much misinformation needs to be
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
    corrected and this is an issue of utmost importance to
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Oregon and the gentleman from California for their amendment. It is a significant improvement over the approach of the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon.
    America's children and families. You have been lied to. I'd
  This deals with the reality that the Internet is international, it is computer-based, it has a completely different history and future than anything that we have known thus far, and I support the language. It deals with the content concerns which the gentlemen from Oregon and California have raised.
    like to give you my views on the pornographer's propaganda
  Mr. Chairman, the only reservation which I would have is that they add in not only content but also any other type of registration. I think in an era of convergence of technologies where telephone and cable may converge with the Internet at some point and some ways it is important for us to ensure that we will have an opportunity down the line to look at those issues, and my hope is that in the conference committee we will be able to sort those out.
    and offer an explanation of the true meaning of the Exon-
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields].
    Coats amendment dealing with computer assisted obscenity and  
  Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take the time to thank him and also the gentleman from California for this fine work. This is a very sensitive area, very complex area, but it is a very important area for the American public, and I just wanted to congratulate him and the gentleman from California on how they worked together in a bipartisan fashion.
    the problem of indecency being made available to minors.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his kindness.
      A review of your proposed legislation to protect the  
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say that the reason that this approach rather than the Senate approach is important is our plan allows us to help American families today.
    computer information service providers shows that you are
  Under our approach and the speed at which these technologies are advancing, the marketplace is going to give parents the tools they need while the Federal Communications Commission is out there cranking out rules about proposed rulemaking programs. Their approach is going to set back the effort to help our families. Our approach allows us to help American families today.
    trying to accomplish the same objectives as the Senate
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
    version of the communications decency amendment (``CDA'').
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond briefly to the important point in this bill that prohibits the FCC from regulating the Internet. Price regulation is at one with usage of the Internet.
      Whatever you may have been led to believe about the ``Exon-
  We want to make sure that the complicated way that the Internet sends a document to your computer, splitting it up into packets, sending it through myriad computers around the world before it reaches your desk is eventually grasped by technology so that we can price it, and we can price ration usage on the Internet so more and more people can use it without overcrowding it.
    Coats amendment'' is obviously incorrect. The Senate bill
  If we regulate the Internet at the FCC, that will freeze or at least slow down technology. It will threaten the future of the Internet. That is why it is so important that we not have a Federal computer commission do that.
    accomplishes the same benefits and protections your
   Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, Congress has a responsibility to help encourage the private sector to protect our children from being exposed to obscene and indecent material on the Internet. Most parents aren't around all day to monitor what their kids are pulling up on the net, and in fact, parents have a hard time keeping up with their kids' abilities to surf cyberspace. Parents need some help and the Cox-Wyden amendment provides it.
    proposed bill seeks to provide. However, I feel your bill,
  The Cox-Wyden amendment is a thoughtful approach to keep smut off the net without government censorship.
    in giving immunity and a defense without a corresponding
  We have been told it is technologically impossible for interactive service providers to guarantee that no subscriber posts indecent material on their bulletin board services. But that doesn't mean that providers should not be given incentives to police the use of their systems. And software and other measures are available to help screen out this material.
    offense, will have the opposite effect to that which you
  Currently, however, there is a tremendous disincentive for online service providers to create family friendly services by detecting and removing objectionable content. These providers face the risk of increased liability where they take reasonable steps to police their systems. A New York judge recently sent the online services the message to stop policing by ruling that Prodigy was subject to a $200 million libel suit simply because it did exercise some control over profanity and indecent material.
    seek.
  The Cox-Wyden amendment removes the liability of providers such as Prodigy who currently make a good faith effort to edit the smut
 
   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:


Page H 8472
      The communications decency amendment is a good, fair, and
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.
    constitutional proposal. You and your colleagues have been
  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.
    lied to about what it would do and what it provides. I trust
  The Chairman. All time on this amendment has expired.
    that you seek a proper blend of law and private action and I
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox].
    trust in your instincts to see through the smoke. Without a
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
    law, the computer nets will continue to be abused by the  
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
    purveyors of hard-core obscenity and it will continue to be a
 
    place in which responsible adults should fear to let their
==Vote on Cox-Wyden Amendment==
    children play. A law that does not prohibit unlawful
[See https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1995631 for party statistics]
    materials is no law at all to the pornography syndicates,
recorded vote
    their associates, and the addicted customers. An overly
 
    strict law would not be tolerated by the courts, for fear of
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
    an unconstitutional prior restraint.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
      There is no reasonable doubt that only a carefully worded
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, noes 4, not voting 10, as follows:
    and first amendment sensitive statute will survive the legal
 
    challenges of the ACLU, Center for Democracy and Technology,
                            [Roll No. 631]
    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


                               AYES--420
  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.
==Vote on Cox-Wyden Amendment==
[See https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/1995631 for party statistics]
recorded vote
 
  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 420, noes 4, not voting 10, as follows:
 
                            [Roll No. 631]
 
                               AYES--420


     Abercrombie
     Abercrombie
Line 759: Line 758:
     Regula
     Regula


Page H 8479
[[Page H 8479]]


     Richardson
     Richardson
Line 1,026: Line 1,025:
     have flourished, to the benefit of  
     have flourished, to the benefit of  


Page H 9988
[[Page H 9988]]
     all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
     all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
       ``(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive  
       ``(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive  
Line 1,423: Line 1,422:
  (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.
  (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 all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
  (4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of 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.
  (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-
 
 
  (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
  (1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
 
 
  (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
  (2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
 
 
  (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
  (3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
 
 
  (4) to 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
  (4) to 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) 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
 
(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.
 
(2) Civil liability
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
 
(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>
 
(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.
 
(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 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
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
 
(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.
 
(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.
 
(5) No effect on sex trafficking law
Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit-
 
(A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
 
(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
 
(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
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, 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
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
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:
 
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
 
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
 
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
 
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, §230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, §509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137 ; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, §1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739 ; Pub. L. 115–164, §4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254 .)
 
Editorial Notes
 
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.
 
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.
 
Amendments
 
2018-Subsec. (e)(5). Pub. L. 115–164 added par. (5).
 
1998-Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(3), added subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e).
 
Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(1), inserted "or 231" after "section 223".
 
Subsecs. (e), (f). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(2), redesignated subsecs. (d) and (e) as (e) and (f), respectively.
 
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
 
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."
 
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.
 
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."
 
Sense of Congress
Pub. L. 115–164, §2, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1253 , provided that: "It is the sense of Congress that-
 
"(1) section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230; commonly known as the 'Communications Decency Act of 1996') was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims;
 
"(2) websites that promote and facilitate prostitution have been reckless in allowing the sale of sex trafficking victims and have done nothing to prevent the trafficking of children and victims of force, fraud, and coercion; and
 
"(3) clarification of such section is warranted to ensure that such section does not provide such protection to such websites."
 
Executive Documents


  (5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
  Ex. Ord. No. 13925. Preventing Online Censorship
Ex. Ord. No. 13925, May 28, 2020, 85 F.R. 34079, provided:


  (c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material
  By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:


  (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
  Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.
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
  In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.
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
 
(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>
 
(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.


  (e) Effect on other laws
  The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.


  (1) No effect on criminal law
  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.
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
  As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.


  (3) State law
  Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms "flagging" content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.
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
  Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician's tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called "Site Integrity" has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.
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
  At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans' speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for "human rights," hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China's mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China's propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID–19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.
Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit-


  (A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
  As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today's digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.


  (B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
  Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.


  (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.
  Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a "publisher" of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability "protection" to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in " 'Good Samaritan' blocking" of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a "forum for a true diversity of political discourse." 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.


  (f) Definitions
  In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from "civil liability" and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable "on account of" its decision in "good faith" to restrict access to content that it considers to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable." It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that-far from acting in "good faith" to remove objectionable content-instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.
As used in this section:


  (1) Internet
  (b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order [May 28, 2020], the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:
The term "Internet" means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.


  (2) Interactive computer service
  (i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider's responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
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
  (ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not "taken in good faith" within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be "taken in good faith" if they are:
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
  (A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider's terms of service; or
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:


  (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
  (B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and


  (B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
  (iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.


  (C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
  Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency's Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.


  (June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title II, §230, as added Pub. L. 104–104, title V, §509, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 137 ; amended Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title XIV, §1404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–739 ; Pub. L. 115–164, §4(a), Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1254 .)
  (b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.


  Editorial Notes
  (c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.


  References in Text
  Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, "can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard." Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85–89 (1980).
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
  (b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
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
  (c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities' public representations about those practices.


  2018-Subsec. (e)(5). Pub. L. 115–164 added par. (5).
  (d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.


  1998-Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(3), added subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e).
  Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.


  Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(1), inserted "or 231" after "section 223".
  (b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:


  Subsecs. (e), (f). Pub. L. 105–277, §1404(a)(2), redesignated subsecs. (d) and (e) as (e) and (f), respectively.
  (i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;


  Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
  (ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;


  Effective Date of 2018 Amendment
  (iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;
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
  (iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and
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
  (v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.
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
  Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.
Pub. L. 115–164, §2, Apr. 11, 2018, 132 Stat. 1253 , provided that: "It is the sense of Congress that-


  "(1) section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230; commonly known as the 'Communications Decency Act of 1996') was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims;
  Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term "online platform" means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.


  "(2) websites that promote and facilitate prostitution have been reckless in allowing the sale of sex trafficking victims and have done nothing to prevent the trafficking of children and victims of force, fraud, and coercion; and
  Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:


  "(3) clarification of such section is warranted to ensure that such section does not provide such protection to such websites."
  (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or


  Executive Documents
  (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.


  Executive Order No. 13925
  (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.


  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.
  (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.


[[Category:Law]]
Donald J. Trump.
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"