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 com-
puter service from being treated as the distributor of information pro-
vided 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 pur-
poses. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Shielding Cul-
pable Platforms Act’’. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:23 May 14, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2000.IH
H2000
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
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 Communica-
tions 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 mis-
interpreted 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 §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, §230 confers immu-
nity 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 in-
cludes distributor liability for exposing children to 
obscene material. This ill-conceived precedent, first 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:23 May 14, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2000.IH
H2000
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
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 por-
nography video despite being notified by the victim, 
and only took it down after Federal officials inter-
vened. 
(6) Every American is entitled to equal justice 
under the law. 
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con-
gress 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 compa-
nies 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— 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:23 May 14, 2021
Jkt 019200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H2000.IH
H2000
pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS