```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2000 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

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.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop Shielding Culpable Platforms 
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
        U.S.C. 230), as added by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 
        (Public Law 104-104; 110 Stat. 133), was enacted to ensure that 
        third parties would not be held liable as the publisher of 
        another entity's speech, not to allow online platforms to 
        knowingly distribute unlawful materials.
            (2) Since enacted, section 230 has been misinterpreted to 
        apply distributor immunity as well as publisher immunity to 
        online platforms. As recently explained by Associate Justice 
        Clarence Thomas in a statement respecting the denial of 
        certiorari in Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, 
        LLC, No. 19-1284 (October 13, 2020), ``Although the text of 
        Sec. 230(c)(1) grants immunity only from `publisher' or 
        `speaker' liability, the first appellate court to consider the 
        statute held that it eliminates distributor liability too--that 
        is, Sec. 230 confers immunity even when a company distributes 
        content that it knows is illegal.''.
            (3) This assertion contradicts a plain reading of the 
        Communications Decency Act of 1996, which includes distributor 
        liability for exposing children to obscene material. This ill-
        conceived precedent, first established in Zeran v. America 
        Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), has resulted in 
        online platforms having little to no responsibility to act as a 
        ``good Samaritan'', even when moderating illicit material.
            (4) It has recently been reported by the New York Times 
        that Pornhub executives believe that section 230 protects them 
        from liability for their platform allegedly hosting videos of 
        rape, child abuse, and other criminal activity.
            (5) As reported in the New York Post, a recent lawsuit has 
        alleged that Twitter left up a child pornography video despite 
        being notified by the victim, and only took it down after 
        Federal officials intervened.
            (6) Every American is entitled to equal justice under the 
        law.
    (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that section 
230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) does not provide 
distributor immunity and does not protect big tech companies when such 
companies knowingly peddle unlawful material.

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF DISTRIBUTOR LIABILITY.

    Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
230(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``No'' and inserting the following:
                    ``(A) In general.--No''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) No effect on treatment as distributor.--
                Nothing in subparagraph (A) shall be construed to 
                prevent a provider or user of an interactive computer 
                service from being treated as the distributor of 
                information provided by another information content 
                provider.''.
                                 <all>
```