Jump to content

EARN IT Act: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fixed typo
AnimeJanai (talk | contribs)
460 edits
m →‎Events leading to EARN IT: changed time-dependent word (no future changes needed)
Line 78: Line 78:


===Events leading to EARN IT===
===Events leading to EARN IT===
The [[2016 United States presidential election]] drew concerns about possible [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|Russian interference in the elections]]. In the wake of various allegations, the U.S. government, now with a Republican leadership, started questioning the role of the [[Big Tech]] companies—[[Google]], [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Microsoft]], and [[Facebook]]—as well as other social media sites like [[Twitter]] in how they moderated content. As the [[Presidency of Donald Trump]] continued over the next four years, a [[culture war]] grew that drew much criticism towards [[far right]] and [[alt right]] positions, as well as general negativism for [[Conservatism|conservative views]].<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/01/google-facebook-twitter-russia-meddling-244412 | title = Senators to Facebook, Google, Twitter: Wake up to Russian threat | first1 = Li | last1 = Zhou | first2= Nancy | last2 = Scola | first3 =Ashley | last3 = Gold | date = November 1, 2017 | accessdate = March 12, 2019 | work = [[Politico]] }}</ref> Social media sites took steps to moderate content and block accounts they had deemed offensive under their Section 230 allowance, most which had come out of alt- and far-right groups. This led Republican lawmakers to claim that these sites were using Section 230 immunity to create a bias.<ref name="Harmon">{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral|title=No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be "Neutral"|last=Harmon|first=Elliot|date=April 12, 2018|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|language=en|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview|title=Why the internet's most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong|last=Robertson|first=Adi|date=June 21, 2019|website=The Verge|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/20/18692829/section-230-hawley-bill-response-anti-bias-certification|title=Both parties are mad about a proposal for federal anti-bias certification|last=Lecher|first=Colin|date=June 20, 2019|website=The Verge|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref> Senator [[Ted Cruz]] argued that section 230 should only apply to providers that are politically "neutral", suggesting that a provider "should be considered to be a [[Legal liability|liable]] 'publisher or speaker' of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoke."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-cruz-demands-return-fairness-doctrine-which-he-has-mocked-past-due-to-misunderstanding-cda-230.shtml|title=Ted Cruz Demands A Return Of The Fairness Doctrine, Which He Has Mocked In The Past, Due To Misunderstanding CDA 230|last=Masnick|first=Mike|website=Techdirt.|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref> Senator [[Josh Hawley]] alleged that section 230 immunity was a "sweetheart deal between [[Big Four tech companies|big tech]] and big government".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/434837-gop-steps-up-attack-over-tech-bias-claims|title=GOP steps up attack over tech bias claims|last=Vas|first=Nicole|date=March 19, 2019|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.multichannel.com/news/sen-hawley-big-techs-sec-230-sweetheart-deal-must-end|title=Sen. Hawley: Big Tech's Sec. 230 Sweetheart Deal Must End|last=Eggerton|first=John|website=Multichannel|language=en-us|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref>
The [[2016 United States presidential election]] drew concerns about possible [[Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|Russian interference in the elections]]. In the wake of various allegations, the U.S. government, then with a Republican leadership, started questioning the role of the [[Big Tech]] companies—[[Google]], [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], [[Microsoft]], and [[Facebook]]—as well as other social media sites like [[Twitter]] in how they moderated content. As the [[Presidency of Donald Trump]] continued over the next four years, a [[culture war]] grew that drew much criticism towards [[far right]] and [[alt right]] positions, as well as general negativism for [[Conservatism|conservative views]].<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/01/google-facebook-twitter-russia-meddling-244412 | title = Senators to Facebook, Google, Twitter: Wake up to Russian threat | first1 = Li | last1 = Zhou | first2= Nancy | last2 = Scola | first3 =Ashley | last3 = Gold | date = November 1, 2017 | accessdate = March 12, 2019 | work = [[Politico]] }}</ref> Social media sites took steps to moderate content and block accounts they had deemed offensive under their Section 230 allowance, most which had come out of alt- and far-right groups. This led Republican lawmakers to claim that these sites were using Section 230 immunity to create a bias.<ref name="Harmon">{{Cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral|title=No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be "Neutral"|last=Harmon|first=Elliot|date=April 12, 2018|website=Electronic Frontier Foundation|language=en|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-internet-law-twenty-six-words-that-created-the-internet-jeff-kosseff-interview|title=Why the internet's most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong|last=Robertson|first=Adi|date=June 21, 2019|website=The Verge|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/20/18692829/section-230-hawley-bill-response-anti-bias-certification|title=Both parties are mad about a proposal for federal anti-bias certification|last=Lecher|first=Colin|date=June 20, 2019|website=The Verge|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref> Senator [[Ted Cruz]] argued that section 230 should only apply to providers that are politically "neutral", suggesting that a provider "should be considered to be a [[Legal liability|liable]] 'publisher or speaker' of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoke."<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180412/23230639618/ted-cruz-demands-return-fairness-doctrine-which-he-has-mocked-past-due-to-misunderstanding-cda-230.shtml|title=Ted Cruz Demands A Return Of The Fairness Doctrine, Which He Has Mocked In The Past, Due To Misunderstanding CDA 230|last=Masnick|first=Mike|website=Techdirt.|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref> Senator [[Josh Hawley]] alleged that section 230 immunity was a "sweetheart deal between [[Big Four tech companies|big tech]] and big government".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/434837-gop-steps-up-attack-over-tech-bias-claims|title=GOP steps up attack over tech bias claims|last=Vas|first=Nicole|date=March 19, 2019|website=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|language=en|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.multichannel.com/news/sen-hawley-big-techs-sec-230-sweetheart-deal-must-end|title=Sen. Hawley: Big Tech's Sec. 230 Sweetheart Deal Must End|last=Eggerton|first=John|website=Multichannel|language=en-us|access-date=July 17, 2019}}</ref>


==Legislation==
==Legislation==

Revision as of 02:21, 8 March 2021

EARN IT Act of 2020
Great Seal of the United States
Long titleEliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020
Announced inthe 116th United States Congress
Sponsored byLindsey Graham
Number of co-sponsors12
Codification
Acts affected
U.S.C. sections affectedSection 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230)
Agencies affected
Legislative history

The EARN IT Act of 2020 (Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020) is proposed legislation in the United States Congress that is aimed to amend Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) of the Communications Act of 1934, which has historically allowed operators of websites to remove content from users that they deem inappropriate and provides them with immunity from civil lawsuits related to the content of such user. Section 230, which was the only surviving portion of the Communications Decency Act passed in 1996, has been attributed to allowing the Internet to flourish without fear of legal repercussions since its passage. However, a number of events in the 2010s had led lawmakers to question the legal freedom that website operators have, and among other legislation options, the EARN IT act was proposed to alter Section 230's protections and put more onus on website operators.

Background

Main article: Section 230

Section 230 was introduced as a amendment with the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) that sought to amend the Communications Act of 1934. Section 230 was introduced by Senators Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden after seeing news of a pair of lawsuits, Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. that ruled very differently for two Internet service providers (ISP) on the matter of their liability for user content. Their intent of Section 230 was to provide the same metaphor that ISPs were simply distributors of materials like booksellers, rather than publishers, and thus should not be responsible for the content they distribute for fear of creating a chilling effect on free speech.[1]

Section 230 contained two primary clauses that apply to any "interactive computer service" such as a website, an ISP, or similar content provider.

  • Section 230(c)(1) states simply that "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."
  • Section 230(c)(2) is considered the "Good Samaritan clause", that as long as the service provider has no role in creating content provided by a user of their service, they are otherwise immune from tort-based lawsuits related to that content. However, providers are still required to remove content that is deemed criminally-infringing.

The CDA passed and was signed into law, but it was immediately challenged in the court system under Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. The case concluded in 1997, ruling that all of the CDA excluding Section 230 was unconstitutional.[2]

Section 230 itself was challenged in other cases, but case law established its constitutionality, primarily with Zeran v. America Online, Inc. in 1997, in which the Fourth Circuit stated that Congress had recognized the threat of tort-based challenges to the growing Internet and properly provided the liability protections that ISPs needed to sustain operations.[3] Since then, Section 230 has generally survived all subsequent legal challenges, and the ability for the Internet to grow at a great pace has been attributed to it. Congress has passed one law that has impacted Section 230, the FOSTA-SESTA Act in 2018 that specifically removed liability protection from services that did not take actions against users knowingly involved in sex exploitation of children or sex trafficking.[4]

Events leading to EARN IT

The 2016 United States presidential election drew concerns about possible Russian interference in the elections. In the wake of various allegations, the U.S. government, then with a Republican leadership, started questioning the role of the Big Tech companies—Google, Apple, Microsoft, and Facebook—as well as other social media sites like Twitter in how they moderated content. As the Presidency of Donald Trump continued over the next four years, a culture war grew that drew much criticism towards far right and alt right positions, as well as general negativism for conservative views.[5] Social media sites took steps to moderate content and block accounts they had deemed offensive under their Section 230 allowance, most which had come out of alt- and far-right groups. This led Republican lawmakers to claim that these sites were using Section 230 immunity to create a bias.[6][7][8] Senator Ted Cruz argued that section 230 should only apply to providers that are politically "neutral", suggesting that a provider "should be considered to be a liable 'publisher or speaker' of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoke."[9] Senator Josh Hawley alleged that section 230 immunity was a "sweetheart deal between big tech and big government".[10][11]

Legislation

The bill, as amended, would create a National Commission On Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention, a 19-member panel. The Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (or their representatives) would serve as three of the members, while the remaining 16 are selected by the majority and minority leaders of both the House and Senate from experts in investigating child exploitation, assisting those that have been exploited as children, consumer protections, and computer security, including representatives from computer services. The Commission once formed will develop and continually update a Best Practices document aimed to provide guidance to service providers to help them to prevent child exploitation and aid in investigation of such crimes.

The bill also crafts two addition changes to Section 230(c)(2)'s liability, allows any state to bring a lawsuit to service providers if they fail to deal with child sexual abuse material on their service, or if they allow end-to-end encryption on their service and do not provide means to enforcement officials to decrypt the material.

Finally, the bill replaces nearly all instances of the wording "child pornography" in existing laws with "child sexual abuse material".

Legislation history

Senator Lindsey Graham introduced the EARN Act in the Senate on March 5, 2020, with co-sponsors Richard Blumenthal, Kevin Cramer, Dianne Feinstein, Josh Hawley, Doug Jones, Robert Casey, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Durbin and Joni Ernst; Senators John Kennedy, Ted Cruz, Chuck Grassley, and Rob Portman co-sponsored the bill later.[12] The bill was reviewed in the Committee on the Judiciary, and passed out of that committee on July 20, 2020 with an amended version to be voted by the Senate.[13] The bill was introduced to the House on October 2, 2020.[14]

In a statement following the Senate Judiciary Committee's unanimous passage of the bill, Graham praised the bipartisanship against the "scourge of child sexual abuse material and the exploitation of children on the internet."[15] Further, he asserted that social media companies and internet service providers would be able to defend themselves in a civil suit as long as they employ "the best business practices."[15][non-primary source needed]

Reception

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children endorsed the EARN IT Act on March 5, writing that "it provides ESPs [electronic service providers] with a roadmap to adopt specific, consistent best practices developed by industry and subject matter experts to prevent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation of children".[16] On the same day, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation praised the act as "the best piece of accountability in the tech space since the passage of FOSTA-SESTA in 2018, which makes it illegal for interactive computer services to knowingly facilitate sex trafficking".[17]

A coalition of 25 organizations, including FreedomWorks and the Wikimedia Foundation, published an open letter on March 6 expressing "strong opposition" to the EARN IT Act, citing perceived conflicts with the First and Fourth Amendments.[18][19] The EARN IT Act was also criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation as "a direct threat to constitutional protections for free speech and expression" on January 31,[20][21] by Human Rights Watch as a bill that "falsely suggests that we must choose between protecting children and protecting other fundamental rights, including privacy and free expression" on June 1,[22][23] and by the American Civil Liberties Union, which stated that "the EARN IT Act will undermine the privacy of every single American, stifle our ability to communicate freely online, and harm LGBTQ people, sex workers, and protesters" on July 1.[24][25] Opponents of the EARN IT Act recognized that some of the "best practices" would most likely include a backdoor for law enforcement into any encryption used on the site, in addition to the dismantling of Section 230's approach, based on commentary made by members of the federal agencies that would be placed on this commission. For example, Attorney General Barr has extensively argued that the use of end-to-end encryption by online services can obstruct investigations by law enforcement, especially those involving child exploitation and has pushed for a governmental backdoor into encryption services. The Senators behind EARN IT have stated that there is no intent to bring any such encryption backdoors with this legislation.[26]

Wyden was critical of the bill, calling it "a transparent and deeply cynical effort by a few well-connected corporations and the Trump administration to use child sexual abuse to their political advantage, the impact to free speech and the security and privacy of every single American be damned."[12][27] Graham stated that the goal of the bill was "to do this in a balanced way that doesn't overly inhibit innovation, but forcibly deals with child exploitation."[28] As an implicit response to EARN IT, Wyden along with House Representative Anna G. Eshoo proposed a new bill, the Invest in Child Safety Act, in May 2020 that would give US$5 billion to the Department of Justice to give additional manpower and tools to enable them to address child exploitation directly rather than to rely on technology companies to rein in the problem.[29]

References

  1. ^ Reynolds, Matt (March 24, 2019). "The strange story of Section 230, the obscure law that created our flawed, broken internet". Wired UK. Retrieved August 12, 2019.
  2. ^ Reno v. ACLU, 521 844, 885 (United States Supreme Court 1997).
  3. ^ Shroud, Matt (August 19, 2014). "These six lawsuits shaped the internet". The Verge. Retrieved July 2, 2019.
  4. ^ Dias, Elizabeth (April 11, 2018). "Trump Signs Bill Amid Momentum to Crack Down on Trafficking". New York Times. Retrieved April 11, 2018.
  5. ^ Zhou, Li; Scola, Nancy; Gold, Ashley (November 1, 2017). "Senators to Facebook, Google, Twitter: Wake up to Russian threat". Politico. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  6. ^ Harmon, Elliot (April 12, 2018). "No, Section 230 Does Not Require Platforms to Be "Neutral"". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  7. ^ Robertson, Adi (June 21, 2019). "Why the internet's most important law exists and how people are still getting it wrong". The Verge. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  8. ^ Lecher, Colin (June 20, 2019). "Both parties are mad about a proposal for federal anti-bias certification". The Verge. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  9. ^ Masnick, Mike. "Ted Cruz Demands A Return Of The Fairness Doctrine, Which He Has Mocked In The Past, Due To Misunderstanding CDA 230". Techdirt. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  10. ^ Vas, Nicole (March 19, 2019). "GOP steps up attack over tech bias claims". The Hill. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  11. ^ Eggerton, John. "Sen. Hawley: Big Tech's Sec. 230 Sweetheart Deal Must End". Multichannel. Retrieved July 17, 2019.
  12. ^ a b Robertson, Adi (March 5, 2020). "Congress proposes anti-child abuse rules to punish web platforms — and raises fears about encryption". The Verge. Retrieved March 5, 2020.
  13. ^ Fisher, Christine (July 2, 2020). "EARN IT Act amendments transfer the fight over Section 230 to the states". Engadget. Retrieved September 16, 2020.
  14. ^ Mullin, Joe (October 2, 2020). "Urgent: EARN IT Act Introduced in House of Representatives". EFF. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  15. ^ a b "Chairman Graham Applauds Senate Judiciary Committee for Unanimously Approving the EARN IT Act | United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary". www.judiciary.senate.gov. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  16. ^ Clark, John F. (March 5, 2020). "EARN IT Act 2020". National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  17. ^ "STATEMENT - National Center on Sexual Exploitation Supports EARN IT Act". National Center on Sexual Exploitation. March 5, 2020. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  18. ^ Gross, Grant (March 13, 2020). "Child exploitation bill earns strong opposition from encryption advocates". Washington Examiner. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  19. ^ "Coalition letter opposing EARN IT 3-6-20" (PDF). March 6, 2020. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  20. ^ "Internet freedom activists: Congress must reject hotly contested EARN IT Act". The Daily Dot. March 6, 2020. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  21. ^ Harmon, Elliot (January 31, 2020). "Congress Must Stop the Graham-Blumenthal Anti-Security Bill". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  22. ^ Kurnick, Chelsea (September 15, 2020). "Censorship Disguised". East Bay Express. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  23. ^ "US: Senate Should Reject EARN IT Act". Human Rights Watch. June 1, 2020. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  24. ^ Fisher, Christine. "EARN IT Act amendments transfer the fight over Section 230 to the states". Engadget. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  25. ^ Newman, Ronald; Ruane, Kate; Guliani, Neema Singh; Thompson, Ian (July 1, 2020). "ACLU Letter of Opposition to EARN IT Act Manager's Amendment". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  26. ^ Feiner, Lauren (March 11, 2020). "Senators dispute industry claims that a bill targeting tech's legal shield would prohibit encryption". CNBC. Retrieved April 2, 2020.
  27. ^ Romm, Tony (March 3, 2020). "Congress, Justice Department take aim at tech, hoping to halt spread of child sexual exploitation online". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 3, 2020.
  28. ^ "Graham, Blumenthal, Hawley, Feinstein Introduce EARN IT Act to Encourage Tech Industry to Take Online Child Sexual Exploitation Seriously" (Press release). United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. March 5, 2020. Retrieved March 10, 2020.
  29. ^ Keller, Michael (May 5, 2020). "A $5 Billion Proposal to Fight Online Child Sexual Abuse". The New York Times. Retrieved May 28, 2020.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EARN_IT_Act&oldid=1010927057"