The U.S. Department of Justice and senator Josh Hawley today introduced legislative proposals that aim to restrict the legal protections afforded to tech giants under Section 230.

Section 230 is a statute in the Communications Decency Act, a piece of legislation dating back to the 1990s, that limits internet companies’ liability over content posted to their services by users. It allows social networks and others to remove content without fear of being sued if they believe it to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”

The legislation submitted by Senator Hawley, which was made public shortly before the Justice Department’s proposals, would limit the scope of Section 230 protections. It’s called the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act. 

The bill would require companies to operate in “good faith” to be shielded from lawsuits related to their content moderation policies. Under the proposal, a firm such a social network wouldn’t be considered to be acting in good faith if it engages in ”intentionally selective enforcement” of its terms of service when it comes to removing content. In such situations, users would be allowed to sue for up to $5,000 plus attorney fees.

Hawley’s bill appears to take direct aim at tech giants, with the proposed rules only applying to services with more than 30 million monthly users in the U.S. or 300 million worldwide, plus at least $1.5 billion in global revenue. The proposal is also sponsored by senators Marco Rubio, Mike Braun and Tom Cotton. 

The Section 230 reforms that the Justice Department introduced today have a similar focus. The Justice Department is asking Congress to limit internet companies’ lawsuit protection under Section 230 to moderation decisions they make in “good faith,” a definition that requires content removals to closely align with a service’s terms of service.

The Justice Department is pushing for additional changes as well. Among other things, it wants Congress to codify that Section 230 protections can’t be used to dispute antitrust claims, like those the Justice Department is reportedly considering to bring against Google. Officials are also seeking to remove the term “otherwise objectionable” from the portion of Section 230 that affords companies protections for removing content they find to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”

There’s considerable doubt about the prospects for such changes, however, as some observers say it could unleash a flood of frivolous lawsuits and others claiming it’s little more than a Republican attempt to limit the spread of liberal and progressive ideas.

Image: Unsplash