October, 04 2022, 01:20pm EDT
If the Supreme Court Undermines Section 230, Marginalized People Will Pay the Price
WASHINGTON
Section 230 is a widely misunderstood but foundational law for human rights and free expression online. Especially in the wake of the Dobbs decision, weakening it would be a disaster.
The Supreme Court of the United States has said it will hear two cases related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Any decision they make will have profound implications for the future of online speech and human rights.
Digital rights group Fight for the Future has long warned lawmakers about the potentially disastrous effects of amending Section 230. The group issued the following statement, which can be attributed to its director, Evan Greer (she/her):
Section 230 is a foundational and widely misunderstood law that protects human rights and free expression online. At a time when civil rights and civil liberties are under unprecedented attack, weakening Section 230 would be catastrophic--disproportionately silencing and endangering marginalized communities including LGBTQ+ people, Black and brown folks, sex workers, journalists, and human rights activists around the world.
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and strip millions of Americans of their bodily autonomy makes the prospect of Section 230 being weakened even more nightmarish. As we explained in Wired, meddling with Section 230's protections in the wake of the Dobbs decision will lead to the widespread removal of online speech related to abortion, including information about abortion access and organizing and fundraising efforts. Far-right organizations like the National Right to Life Committee have drafted legislation that criminalizes not only providing an abortion but hosting abortion speech online. The legal immunity provided by Section 230 is the only thing preventing far-right groups and the attorneys general of states like Texas and Mississippi from effectively writing the speech rules for the entire Internet.
Some on the left misguidedly believe that attacking Section 230 is the only way to hold Big Tech accountable for the harm caused by its surveillance capitalist business model and its algorithmic recommendations that are maximized for engagement. But that's simply not true. Weakening Section 230's protections would make it harder, not easier, for platforms to remove harmful and hateful content because once they begin moderating, pre-Section 230 law says they become liable for any content they do not remove that causes harm. Additionally, by increasing the risk of litigation for small- and medium-sized platforms, altering Section 230 would solidify the monopoly power of the largest companies like Facebook and Google.
Conservatives and Republicans have claimed that Section 230 has been weaponized to "censor" right wing viewpoints on social media. There is no evidence for this. In fact, studies show that people of color and LGBTQ+ people are among the groups most regularly deplatformed and over-moderated on major tech platforms. In any event, weakening Section 230 protections wouldn't prevent social media companies from removing posts based on political views, just like it wouldn't incentivize platforms to moderate more thoughtfully, transparently, or responsibly. It would only incentivize them to moderate in whatever manner their lawyers tell them will avoid lawsuits, even if that means trampling on marginalized people's ability to express themselves online.
The two cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear both deal with horrific crimes related to terrorism. One case deals specifically with liability around online recommendation algorithms, like those used by YouTube. We've written before about how attempting to regulate algorithmic recommendations by changing Section 230 is a dangerous idea. Most legislative attempts to do this will run smack into the First Amendment, which protects platforms' ability to make editorial decisions.
The Supreme Court should leave Section 230 alone. So should Congress. Instead, lawmakers should focus their efforts on enacting privacy legislation strong enough to effectively end the surveillance-driven business model of harmful tech giants like Facebook. The best way to address the harms of algorithmic manipulation without making matters worse is to regulate surveillance, not speech. The Biden administration's FTC should also do everything in its power to crack down on corporate data harvesting and use of personal data to power harmful and discriminatory algorithms.
We can hold Big Tech giants accountable while protecting free expression and human rights. The Court's preoccupation with Section 230 should be lambasted for endangering marginalized people and free speech, especially after the calamitous overturning of Roe.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Climate Movement Cheers Michigan AG's Plans to Sue Big Oil
"Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable," said the state attorney general
May 09, 2024
Advocates of holding fossil fuel giants accountable for their significant contributions to the climate emergency welcomed Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Thursday announcement that she intends to sue the polluting industry.
"Big Oil knew decades ago that their products would cause catastrophic climate change, but instead of doing the right thing they lied about it," declared Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "The people of Michigan deserve their day in court to make these companies pay for the massive harm they knowingly caused."
Dozens of municipalities and attorneys general for the District of Columbia and eight states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have already filed climate liability suits against Big Oil in recent years.
"Our 'Pure Michigan' identity is under threat from the effects of climate change," said Nessel, whose state was praised last year for passing clean energy legislation. "Warmer temperatures are shrinking ski seasons in the UP and disrupting the wonderful blooms of Holland's Tulip Time Festival. Severe weather events are on the rise."
"These impacts threaten not only our way of life but also our economy and pose long-term risks to Michigan's thriving agribusiness," she continued. "The fossil fuel industry, despite knowing about these consequences, prioritized profits over people and the environment. Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable."
The Democratic attorney general's office explained that she is "seeking proposals from attorneys and law firms to serve as special assistant attorneys general to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state of Michigan."
The Detroit Newsnoted that "Nessel took a similar tact in suing drugmakers for the opioid crisis, farming out much of the work to outside law firms in Michigan, Texas, and Florida."
According to the newspaper:
Nessel's office is working with other state departments to assess the costs associated with climate change, such as the cost of expanding storm water systems to handle flooding caused by stronger storms, responding to natural disasters, or supporting northern Michigan tourism economies dealing with dwindling ice and snow.
"This is going to be a massive discovery effort to find out exactly what our Michigan damages are now already and what can we expect to see in the future as a result of climate change," she said.
"I don't know that there's a bigger issue facing the state of Michigan than climate change," Nessel told the outlet. "We are talking about billions and billions of dollars in damages and we're already starting to see that on a day-to-day basis. We know this is only going to get worse."
The youth-led Sunrise Movement applauded Nessel's plans and asserted that U.S. President Joe Biden—who is seeking reelection in November—and the Department of Justice "must follow suit."
The group's call echoed similar demands that emerged last week in response to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Compare Biden's Proposed Asylum Rule to 'Failed Trump-Era Policies'
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," said one migrant rights advocate.
May 09, 2024
Immigrant rights advocates on Thursday slammed the Biden administration's proposal to fast-track the rejection of certain migrants seeking asylum in the United States.
On Thursday the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule that would empower immigration officials to disqualify certain asylum-seekers during their initial eligibility screening—called the credible fear interview (CFI)—using existing national security and terrorism-related criteria, or bars.
DHS said the rule would apply to noncitizens who have "engaged in certain criminal activity, persecuted others, or have been involved in terrorist activities."
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation."
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called the proposed rule "yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here."
However, Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argued that while "bars are an important feature of our immigration laws to ensure that dangerous individuals are not allowed into the country," they must be "accurately applied where warranted."
"This change could make the process faster by excluding people who would not be entitled to stay," he noted. "However, due process will likely be eroded by accelerating what is a highly complex legal analysis needed for these bars and conducting them at the preliminary CFI screening."
As Chen explained:
At that early stage, few asylum seekers will have the opportunity to seek legal counsel or time to understand the consequences of a bar being applied. Under the current process, they have more time to seek legal advice, to prepare their case, and to appeal it or seek an exemption. Ultimately to establish a fair and orderly process at the border, Congress needs to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the resources to meet its mission and also ensure the truly vulnerable are not summarily denied protection without due process.
Democratic lawmakers—some of whom held a press conference Wednesday on protecting undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—also criticized the proposal.
"As the Biden administration considers executive actions on immigration, we must not return to failed Trump-era policies aimed at banning asylum and moving us backwards," said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), referring to former Republican President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee to face President Joe Biden in November.
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation," he added.
One year ago, critics accused Biden of "finishing Trump's job" by implementing a crackdown on asylum-seekers upon the expiration of Title 42—a provision first invoked during Trump administration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued by Biden to expel more than 1 million migrants under the pretext of public safety.
Earlier this week, the advocacy group Human Rights First released a report detailing the harms of the policy on its anniversary. The group held a press conference to unveil the report and warn of the dangers of further anti-migrant policies.
"The interviews with hundreds of asylum-seekers make clear that the asylum ban and related restrictions strands in danger children and adults seeking asylum, punishes people for seeking protection, leads to the return of refugees to persecution, spurs irregular crossings, and denies equal access to asylum to people facing the most dire risks," Human Rights First director of research and analysis of refugee protection Christina Asencio said during the press conference.
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," Asencio added.
On Wednesday, three advocacy groups—Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and the Texas Civil Rights Project—sued the federal government on behalf of noncitizens with disabilities seeking more information regarding CBP One, the problem-plagued Customs and Border Protection app migrants must use to schedule asylum interviews at U.S. ports of entry.
"We have and continue to see migrants with disabilities facing unlawful discrimination and unequal access to the asylum process due to the inaccessibility of the app," said Laura Murchie, an attorney with the Civil Rights and Education Enforcement Center involved in the case.
"CBP needs to release these documents so we can advocate for and ensure compliance with the law so asylum-seekers with disabilities do not continue to be harmed by CBP's disregard for rights that are guaranteed by federal disability law," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Says Israel 'Will Stand Alone' as Biden Threatens to Withhold Arms
"If we have to, we will fight with our nails," the Israeli prime minister said in response to the American leader's warning against a major Rafah invasion.
May 09, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday responded to U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to withhold shipments of arms used by the Israel Defense Forces to kill thousands of Palestinian civilians by declaring that his far-right government would continue its assault on Gaza with or without American help.
"If we are forced to stand alone, we will stand alone," Netanyahu said in a video ahead of next week's anniversary of Israel's establishment in 1948, largely via the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's Arabs. "I have already said that if we have to, we will fight with our nails."
Echoing Netanyahu, Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the IDF already has the "necessary weapons" to wage war, "including in Rafah," where over 1 million people forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza are sheltering alongside around 280,000 local residents, all of them bracing for a full-scale Israeli invasion.
The prime minister's remarks came a day after Biden threatened to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel if it launches a major invasion of Rafah—even as critics noted that Israeli forces have already attacked and entered the city. Some accused Biden of walking back a previous "red line" warning against any assault on Rafah.
Common Dreamsreported Tuesday that Biden is delaying shipments of two types of bombs to Israel in order to send a message that the president's tolerance for what he called Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" of Gazan civilians is waning.
However, observers noted that Biden recently signed off on $14.3 billion in emergency armed assistance for Israel atop the nearly $4 billion the key ally already receives from Washington each year. The Biden administration has quietly approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel since October 7, while pushing for billions of dollars worth of additional deals, including advanced fighter jets.
Biden has also repeatedly bypassed Congress to fast-track weapons transfers to Israel as it wages what the International Court of Justice in January called a "plausibly" genocidal war that's killed, injured, or left missing more than 124,000 Palestinians—mostly women and children—since October 7.
The U.S. administration also provides diplomatic cover for Israel's policies and practices in the form of United Nations Security Council vetoes.
Despite all this support—which comes as most election-year voters supporting Biden's Democratic Party believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza—Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Thursday tweeted, "Hamas ❤️ Biden."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular