I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2000 

To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that 

such section does not prevent a provider or user of an interactive computer service from being treated as the distributor of information provided by another information content provider, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mr. BANKS (for himself, Mr. TIFFANY, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. BARR, Mr. 

NORMAN, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. 

BABIN, and Mr. GIBBS) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 

to clarify that such section does not prevent a provider 

or user of an interactive computer service from being 

treated as the distributor of information provided by 

another information content provider, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Shielding Cul5 pable Platforms Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2000 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS. 

2 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

3 (1) Section 230 of the Communications Act of 

4 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), as added by the Communica5 tions Decency Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 

6 110 Stat. 133), was enacted to ensure that third 

7 parties would not be held liable as the publisher of 

8 another entity’s speech, not to allow online platforms 

9 to knowingly distribute unlawful materials. 

10 (2) Since enacted, section 230 has been mis11 interpreted to apply distributor immunity as well as 

12 publisher immunity to online platforms. As recently 

13 explained by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in 

14 a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in 

15 Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, 

16 LLC, No. 19–1284 (October 13, 2020), ‘‘Although 

17 the text of §230(c)(1) grants immunity only from 

18 ‘publisher’ or ‘speaker’ liability, the first appellate 

19 court to consider the statute held that it eliminates 

20 distributor liability too—that is, §230 confers immu21 nity even when a company distributes content that 

22 it knows is illegal.’’. 

23 (3) This assertion contradicts a plain reading of 

24 the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which in25 cludes distributor liability for exposing children to 

26 obscene material. This ill-conceived precedent, first 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2000 IH

1 established in Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 

2 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), has resulted in online 

3 platforms having little to no responsibility to act as 

4 a ‘‘good Samaritan’’, even when moderating illicit 

5 material. 

6 (4) It has recently been reported by the New 

7 York Times that Pornhub executives believe that 

8 section 230 protects them from liability for their 

9 platform allegedly hosting videos of rape, child 

10 abuse, and other criminal activity. 

11 (5) As reported in the New York Post, a recent 

12 lawsuit has alleged that Twitter left up a child por13 nography video despite being notified by the victim, 

14 and only took it down after Federal officials inter15 vened. 

16 (6) Every American is entitled to equal justice 

17 under the law. 

18 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con19 gress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 

20 (47 U.S.C. 230) does not provide distributor immunity 

21 and does not protect big tech companies when such compa22 nies knowingly peddle unlawful material. 

23 SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF DISTRIBUTOR LIABILITY. 

24 Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 

25 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1)) is amended— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 2000 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘No’’ and inserting the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—No’’; and 

4 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(B) NO EFFECT ON TREATMENT AS DIS6 TRIBUTOR.—Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall 

7 be construed to prevent a provider or user of an 

8 interactive computer service from being treated 

9 as the distributor of information provided by 

10 another information content provider.’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS