Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios
An upcoming Section 230 bill has reignited the debate over the tech industry's favorite law.
Why it matters: Lawmakers have been trying to kill Section 230 for years. It hasn't worked.
- Those who want to keep the effort alive are hoping the new administration and bipartisan support could inject some momentum.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin plan to reintroduce a bill soon that would sunset Section 230 in two years if tech companies don't come to the table to negotiate an alternative approach to liability protections.
- "I'm under no illusion that it will be easy to pass legislation to protect kids online and finally make the tech industry legally accountable for the harms they cause, like every other industry in America," Durbin said in a statement.
Flashback: The bipartisan leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee floated a similar idea last year.
- In the Senate, Graham first pushed the sunsetting idea back in 2020.
President Trump wanted to eliminate Section 230 during his first term.
- Former President Biden wasn't a fan of it, either. During Biden's presidency, there were multiple Supreme Court cases that teed up the law to be severely weakened.
- None ending up doing so, with the justices holding up a strong interpretation of it in two thorny cases involving X (then Twitter) and Google around terrorism and content hosted on each platform.
- The Supreme Court last summer put Texas and Florida laws aiming to limit Section 230 protections on hold.
What they're saying: Peter Chandler, executive director of Internet Works, which has smaller tech platforms like Reddit and Vimeo as members, told Axios his group has been meeting with lawmakers and the White House to press how important Section 230 is to the existence of those online companies.
- Chandler said there was a recognition at the White House meeting that Trump's campaign message about restoring free speech online "doesn't have to be contrary to protecting Section 230."
- Internet Works visited with Durbin staffers as well, he said: "We told them we want to be part of the solution, not the problem."
It's not yet clear how exactly Trump wants to tackle Section 230 this time around, or how far he wants to go. The White House declined to comment on whether they supported Graham and Durbin's plans.
- Back in 2020, Trump signed an EO looking to limit Section 230, and vetoed the annual defense policy bill partly because Congress failed to repeal it.
- But now, both Elon Musk's X and Trump's own Truth Social rely on Section 230 protections to host and moderate content as they see fit.
- X Corp.'s lobbying filings from 2024 include content moderation and Section 230 bills.
What we're watching: FCC chair Brendan Carr may be able to shake up how Section 230 is interpreted more quickly than congressional efforts, although it's debatable whether the FCC has the power to do so.
- During a press conference on Thursday, Carr welcomed the Graham-Durbin bill and efforts to overhaul the law. But he maintained the FCC already has the authority to interpret parts of it and clarify Congress' original intent.
- "When it comes to fundamental reform, when it comes to doing away with Section 230 — if that's what Congress wants to do, that's for them to do. But I do think there's a role for the FCC on the interpretive side," Carr said.
