House Version of SAFE TECH Act Introduced by Dem. Reps

As YNOT and other media outlets observed when the Senate version was introduced, the SAFE TECH Act would place greater scrutiny on payments made to adult content creators and web admins. This is because the proposal targets third-party liability for payment platforms that process payments the bill and its sponsors consider unethical or potentially malicious.

Since the Act is a marquee Democratic proposal to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, the bill is expected to receive support from leadership in both chambers.

“The internet looks a lot different today than it did when Section 230 was originally enacted in 1996,” said Rep. Donald McEachin, D-Virginia, in a statement. “The law, which was originally meant to provide safe harbor for sites trying to establish effective moderation tools, acts as a crutch for large platforms to buck liability for harmful and—more often than not— illegal actions.”

According to McEachin’s statement, the SAFE TECH Act targets Section 230’s provisions, government payments, and other content moderation measures. As described by McEachin, the Act would “reform Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act to: Limit the scope of Section 230 immunity by preventing platforms from invoking liability protections for: Advertisements or other paid content—ensuring platforms cannot continue to profit as their services act as a conduit to scam vulnerable consumers; Enforcement of civil rights laws—allowing for the enforcement of vital laws to combat discrimination online; Laws involving stalking/cyber-stalking or harassment and intimidation on the basis of protected classes—allowing victims of abuse and targeted harassment to hold platforms accountable when service providers directly enable harmful activity.”

The Act would also enable “(w)rongful death actions—safeguarding families’ ability to bring a suit against platforms where the platform directly contributed to a loss of life; Suits under the Alien Tort Claims Act—potentially allowing victims of human rights violations abroad enabled by a platform to seek redress in the U.S. against U.S.-based platforms. Limit Section 230’s ‘Good Samaritan’ protections by allowing victims to seek injunctive relief to prevent the spread of material on a platform likely to cause irreparable harm; Make Section 230 an affirmative defense, placing the burden of persuasion on platforms raising Section 230 to prove they are being treated as a publisher by another information content provider.” The language of the bill in the Senate is similar.

Here’s the current language of Section 230:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information speech provided by another information content provider.”

As noted in YNOT’s coverage of the Senate version of the bill introduced in February. the current form of the Senate’s SAFE TECH Act would update Section 230 language to the following:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any speech provided by another information content provider, except to the extent the provider or user has accepted payment to make the speech available or, in whole or in part, created or funded the creation of the speech.”

And:

“[This section] shall be an affirmative defense to a claim alleging that an interactive computer service provider is a publisher or speaker with respect to speech provided by another information content provider that an interactive computer service provider has a burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence.”

“This legislation does not restrict free speech; nor does it guarantee that platforms will be held liable in all cases,” said McEachin. “Rather, the SAFE TECH Act provides victims of online abuse, harassment, and discrimination with a path for recourse. For too long we have allowed platforms to self-police, and it simply has not worked. It’s time to start looking for solutions, and the SAFE TECH Act offers a viable one.”

Regardless of your definition of controversial content, the SAFE TECH Act is merely a well-intentioned fix to law with no practical understanding of the real issues at hand. The potential unintended consequences behind this bill are staggering, leaving proponents for the bill with a dilemma: restrict many forms of constitutionally-protected speech to fight potential malice, or permit substantial amendments to the legislation to offer more precise rules and regulations.

A case can be made that certain platforms should be held to a greater degree of liability than they are currently, but the solution shouldn’t come at the expense of an individual’s ability to make a living on the internet. The SAFE TECH Act, if championed by Senate Democrats as the best possible reform to Section 230, requires amending and the input of stakeholders, including adult performers and models. Advocates, journalists (including us here at YNOT), and many others who have reviewed legislation are concerned about the impacts it would have over the processing of payments for adult-oriented content.

As Lauren Crosby Medlicott wrote for Vice, the SAFE TECH Act is “once again threatening the livelihoods and safety of sex workers with its latest attempt to reform Section 230.” Tess Joseph, an advocate and writer at the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, drafted a column for Woodhull’s “Sex and Politics” blog, in which she argued the Act doesn’t “reform” Section 230, rather “by significantly diluting its power and scope, the Act imperils its very existence.”

In her post, Joseph also cites the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which back in February opined that while the Act “seeks to address real problems Internet users experience,” implementation of the bill “would harm everyone on the Internet.”

The House version of the SAFE TECH Act is sponsored by McEachin and Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida.

Real Boys Toys