After Trump, Congress, Supreme Court Justice hit out at tech giants' legal immunity, now FCC boss wants to stick his oar in, too

Pai says he wants to 'clarify' Section 230's 26 words even though he probably can't do anything about it

On Thursday, FCC chairman Ajit Pai declared his intention to clarify a law he may not have the authority to interpret.

Citing concerns about Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act, which more or less protects online service providers from liability for content created by their users, the boss of America's comms regulator said he plans "to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify" the meaning of the statute.

"Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech," Pai opined. "But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters."

But Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman, who has written extensively on Section 230, expressed doubt that there is a valid legal framework for what Pai wants to do as boss of the FCC.

"The fact that they're making the pre-announcement with any support makes me skeptical about the legitimacy of the announcement," he said in a phone interview with The Register.

"There should be some formal piece of paper that says what the FCC is doing. Instead, all we get is a cryptic announcement on Twitter. It sure seems like the announcement has campaign-related benefits and the timing would be consistent with that."

Bias versus BS

Both Republicans and Democrats have raised concerns that Section 230 affords internet companies too much protection.

In May the Trump administration said the law should not provide immunity for social media companies that remove content to censor "certain viewpoints," a statement based on the unsupported claim that social media platforms are biased against conservative content.


US Supreme Court Justice flames lower courts for giving 'sweeping immunity' to Facebook, YouTube, etc when it comes to harmful content


A 2018 survey by non-profit MediaMatters "found no evidence that conservative content is being censored on Facebook." Meanwhile, a glance at the top 10 links interacted with daily on Facebook shows it is dominated by conservative material.

At the same time, Democratic lawmakers have expressed reservations about the law because it hasn't sufficiently motivated online platforms to police misinformation, hate speech, and illegal content.

Efforts to rethink the law haven't been well received. A draft proposal from the US Department of Justice to amend Section 230 was panned last month by Representative Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), who points out that Congress gets to rewrite legislation, not the President.

"President Trump’s Section 230 legislation is a mess, but one thing is clear – the proposed changes would make it harder to stop the misinformation and disinformation spread by the President and foreign governments," he said.

Hey, he asked!

But as Pai notes in his statement, the US Commerce Department asked Congress to clarify Section 230 and US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made clear that he was willing to review the liability protections afforded to internet platforms.

Pai's remarks coincide with Twitter's and Facebook's removal of a dubiously sourced New York Post story about Hunter Biden, takedowns that produced predictable objections from President Trump about the need to undo Section 230.

Twitter said it removed links to the story because it violated its rules on distributing private information and hacked materials. Facebook said it was reducing the visibility of the story in accordance with its efforts to reduce misinformation.

A call to arms

May's White House "Executive Order Preventing Online Censorship" directed the Attorney General and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The telecom watchdog has been asked to propose regulations clarifying when content removal done under the auspices of Section 230 protection becomes unprotected editorial discretion. Back then US Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) called the directive "a blatant attempt to use the full power of the United States government to force private companies to lie for the President."

Pai insists he can take action to clarify the meaning of the law, something already fairly well established through US court rulings. "The Commission’s General Counsel has informed me that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230," he said in his statement.

Not everyone agrees. "The FCC does not have the authority to rewrite the law, and Ajit Pai can't appoint himself commissioner of the speech police," said US Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) in a statement posted to Twitter.

Wyden should know. He's one of the co-authors of the 26 words that make up Section 230, along with former Representative Chris Cox (R-CA). In comments filed last month in accordance with the rulemaking process, Cox wrote, "Congress not only did not give the Commission authority to regulate the internet in Section 230, but it expressly intended this law to prevent that result." ®

Other stories you might like

  • We can unify HPC and AI software environments, just not at the source code level

    Compute graphs are the way forward

    Register Debate Welcome to the latest Register Debate in which writers discuss technology topics, and you the reader choose the winning argument. The format is simple: we propose a motion, the arguments for the motion will run this Monday and Wednesday, and the arguments against on Tuesday and Thursday. During the week you can cast your vote on which side you support using the poll embedded below, choosing whether you're in favour or against the motion. The final score will be announced on Friday, revealing whether the for or against argument was most popular.

    This week's motion is: A unified, agnostic software environment can be achieved. We debate the question: can the industry ever have a truly open, unified, agnostic software environment in HPC and AI that can span multiple kinds of compute engines?

    Arguing today FOR the motion is Rob Farber, a global technology consultant and author with an extensive background in HPC and in developing machine-learning technology that he applies at national laboratories and commercial organizations. Rob can be reached at

    Continue reading
  • But why that VPN? How WireGuard made it into Linux

    Even the best of ideas can take their own sweet time making it into the kernel

    Maybe someday – maybe – Zero Trust will solve many of our network security problems. But for now, if you want to make sure you don't have an eavesdropper on your network, you need a Virtual Private Network (VPN).

    There's only one little problem with commercial VPNs: many of them are untrustworthy. So, what can you do? Well, run your own of course is the open-source answer. And, today, your VPN of choice is Linux's built-in VPN: WireGuard.

    Why WireGuard rather than OpenVPN or IKEv2? Because it's simpler to implement while maintaining security and delivering faster speeds. And, when it comes to VPNs, it's all about balancing speed and security.

    Continue reading
  • Boffins demonstrate a different kind of floppy disk: A legless robot that hops along a surface

    This is fine

    Those of us who fear future enslavement by robot overlords may have one more reason not to sleep at night: engineers have demonstrated a few of the legless, floppy variety making some serious leaps.

    Animated pancake-like droids have demonstrated their ability to execute a series of flops in a fashion their creators – soft robotics engineers based in China – describe as "rapid, continuous, and steered jumping."

    "Jumping is an important locomotion function to extend navigation range, overcome obstacles, and adapt to unstructured environments," Rui Chen of Chongqing University and Huayan Pu of Shanghai University said.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021