,
18 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Here is the text of @HawleyMO bill: hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/… Virtually all of the criticisms I've seen so far reflect news reports of the bill--not the actual bill.
2/ As a threshold matter, the bill only applies to "covered" entities with more than 30 million active users in the US, or 300 million users worldwide. I haven't done the math, but this bill would exclude the overwhelming majority of social media platforms. 
3/ Here is the general gist: Large social media firms that benefit from Section 230 would now need to be certified by the FCC to maintain that safe harbor. The overwhelming majority of firms would still be protected by Section 230.
4/ Specifically the company would have to show, by "clear and convincing evidence," that it "does not moderate information provided by other information content providers in a manner that is biased against a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint."
5/ What is "politically biased moderation?" Moderating info to "negatively affect" a political party or "disproportionately restrict access to ... information from a political party." The bill also applies when an officer acts w/ an "intent to negatively affect a political party"
6/ There is a carve-out for protected speech. Of course, Congress cannot restrict free speech.
7/ This provision merely restates the obvious question: is the information published by these providers protected by the 1st Am. I addressed this question in "What Happens if Data is Speech?" (2013): papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
8/ The bill also makes it exceedingly difficult to obtain a certification. A simple @FCC majority is not enough. You need 4/5. And all dissents must be published. Plus, the FCC must allow the public to submit complaints if their content is subject to politically biased moderation
9/ I do not think this bill implicates Red Lion. Under the Fairness Doctrine, licensed radio stations could lose their licenses--and be taken off the air--if they did not provide a right of reply.
10/ With @HawleyMO's bill, large social media companies that do not seek certification can continue to operate, but will no longer receive Section 230 immunity. The First Amendment does not compel Section 230 immunity.
11/ Would the lack of immunity lead to suits that bankrupt the firms--the equivalent of taking a radio station off the air? I will let others decide that question. Query if these firms can exist in other countries w/o 230 immunity.
12/ Therefore, the only question is whether the FCC's enforcement regime would deny a benefit to a firm in violation of the First Amendment. The statute (supra thread at 6) does have a First Amendment carve-out. But that is not enough to save the law.
13/ The terms "politically biased" and "moderation" would have vagueness and overbreadth problems, as they can chill protected speech.
14/ As a policy matter, I do not support this bill at all. Indeed, I actively rely on Section 230 to challenge state laws that restrict posting information about 3D-printed guns. But the constitutional question is much closer than some social media chatter has made it seem.
16/ My former Professor @ProfWrightGMU points out that when FTC (not FCC) is short-handed, "one more than majority" requires unanimity.
17/ Also, a few ppl pointed out that I misread the business necessity provision. They're right. That clause actually empowers the social media providers to regulate non-protected speech. Thanks, @HashtagGriswold and @gabrielmalor
