Reactions to NTIA's Section 230 Petition

Reactions to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's petition asking the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules clarifying Section 230.

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross: “Many Americans rely on online platforms to stay informed and connected, sharing their thoughts and ideas on issues important to them, which can oftentimes lead to free and open debate around public policies and upcoming elections. It has long been the policy of the United States to foster a robust marketplace of ideas on the Internet and the free flow of information around the world. President Trump is committed to protecting the rights of all Americans to express their views and not face unjustified restrictions or selective censorship from a handful of powerful companies.”

Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior counselor, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society: "Like most petitions for rulemaking filed with the FCC, this one is unlikely to be granted and certainly not in the form submitted. The FCC has no authority to interpret Section 230, and even if it did, the rule that Trump wants is utterly incompatible with the plain language of the statute. Even though this petition is going nowhere, its mere existence violates the First Amendment. It is a transparent attempt to intimidate social media platforms into advancing Trump’s agenda." 

Computer & Communications Association President Matt Schruers: “The demand that the FCC take on the role of ‘Ministry of Truth’ is designed to pressure social media companies to bias content moderation decisions in the Administration’s political favor. While digital services are busy fighting online misinformation and foreign influence during a pandemic and ahead of an election, it is disappointing to see the Administration instead doubling down on an obviously unlawful Executive Order.”

James E. Dunstan, TechFreedom General Counsel: “It’s a shame that the FCC is being put in this position: legally, the FCC doesn’t have to dignify this Petition with a response, but the political pressure to put it out for comment will be overwhelming. The Petition is a monumental waste of the FCC’s time. It garbles both statutory interpretation and constitutional law. Both the Executive Order and Petition seek to have the FCC collapse the three clearly distinct immunities in Section 230, and overlay a ‘good faith’ proof requirement that exists in only a narrow part of the statute. Applying a ‘good faith’ standard (whatever that means) to difficult content moderation decisions would eviscerate the critical function of Section 230...."

Free Press Senior Counsel Gaurav Laroia: “The Trump administration’s petition to the FCC for a rulemaking on Section 230 is a confused and embarrassing document — awful as a policy prescription and just plain wrong on the law. The government’s lawyers tried, but failed, to make sense of an executive order born from a Trump tantrum about Twitter’s mild and occasional fact checking. Though Section 230 has been in the news for months, Trump cannot create by fiat a new ambiguity in that famously short law. He cannot direct the FCC to put words in a statute that weren’t there before, nor suddenly give the agency authority to regulate internet platforms — a power the FCC has never claimed and that even Chairman Ajit Pai rejected in his mistaken repeal of Net Neutrality. And now, in a truly brazen act of hypocrisy, the administration that rejected Net Neutrality protections for broadband providers’ carriage of websites and other internet content is attempting to regulate platforms and speakers instead — mandating protections for the president’s speech on other people’s websites. While based on legally dubious grounds, the executive order and now this petition still threaten free speech online. They represent another of the president’s attacks on the rule of law, free expression and the rights of people and companies to disagree with him. Trump’s naked attempt to bully Twitter and other companies into allowing his propaganda to go unchallenged would further divide our society and threaten a free and fair election in November. And unfortunately, it’s not just President Trump. His sycophants at the FCC like Commissioner Carr, who like to wrap themselves in First Amendment principles, have been enthusiastic cheerleaders for this direct call to turn the FCC into the president’s speech police. They hold up the First Amendment as a prop only when it’s politically convenient to do so. They should join with Commissioners Rosenworcel and Starks, and immediately reject this unconstitutional attempt at censorship. Changing Section 230 is the prerogative of Congress, where thoughtful and sincere debates about reform are already taking place among some members. This momentous and potentially dangerous decision can’t be left to a thin-skinned president and his fawning enablers at the FCC.”