Josh Hawley's new tech bill would blow up the internet [theweek.com]
NetChoice Condemns Sen. Hawley’s “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.” [netchoice.org]
US Senator moves to strip social media giants of platform status [telecoms.com]
Sen. Hawley’s “Bias” Bill Would Let the Government Decide Who Speaks [www.eff.org]
Hawley Contra Reagan [www.cato.org]
Sen. Josh Hawley’s proposed legislation misses the point about regulating Big Tech [www.vox.com]
Hawley Defends the Public Square [www.firstthings.com]
Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill [thebulwark.com]
Senator Hawley Proposes Law To Force Internet Companies To Beg The FTC For Permission To Host Content [www.techdirt.com]
Ending immunity for Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube would result in more censorship, not less [www.washingtonexaminer.com]
Josh Hawley's Senate Censorship Bill Could Break the Internet [www.digitaltrends.com]
The idea that government should punish companies if their content moderation policies aren't politically neutral ignores fact that some politics is extremely odious.
— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) June 21, 2019
Treating all political speech as neutral is government mandated tolerance of hate speech.https://t.co/Dvk0yNObFh
So Republicans want the federal government to regulate speech again. https://t.co/tfGEWP4SUV
— Kim-Mai Cutler (@kimmaicutler) June 19, 2019
Sen. Hawley has "proposed a massively stupid and clearly unconstitutional bill" to wipe out CDA 230 protections for internet platforms, a plan "so shockingly dumb and obviously unconstitutional it boggles the mind that Hawley is a constitutional lawyer" https://t.co/poA7iDrDnU
— Mathew Ingram (@mathewi) June 19, 2019
This bears some similarities to the Fairness Doctrine, which has a long history in media regulation, as well as net neutrality. It also has a National industrial Recovery Act vibe, which I don't love. Regardless the discussion over Section 230 is advancing. https://t.co/9iLNg9YnUv
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) June 19, 2019
Despite its name, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act would make the Internet less safe for free expression, not more. https://t.co/sRNy7rRygb
— EFF (@EFF) June 21, 2019
Spoiler: “neutrality” in politics and journalism simply doesn’t exist.
— Fabio Chiusi (@fabiochiusi) June 19, 2019
It’s not a technological problem concerning digital platforms: it’s a fact of life. https://t.co/1m3lrA6YLZ
NEW → Sen. Hawley released a new bill that will remove the immunity big tech companies receive under Section 230 unless they submit to an external audit that proves that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral. https://t.co/s2SGsmnZZm pic.twitter.com/3o1UtpBh5b
— Senator Hawley Press Office (@SenHawleyPress) June 19, 2019
Huge proposal by Sen. Josh Hawley to take away 230 protections from Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc if they don’t submit to recurring FTC review to prove they moderate political speech “neutrally”
— nilay patel (@reckless) June 19, 2019
I don’t know that that’s the right answer, but here we go https://t.co/SWzXV3UCJi
Reagan used to say, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Well, Senator Josh Hawley is from the government and he's here to help. https://t.co/cud2CG13XC
— James Pethokoukis (@JimPethokoukis) June 20, 2019
Despite its name, the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act would make the Internet less safe for free expression, not more. https://t.co/sRNy7rRygb
— EFF (@EFF) June 21, 2019
MO's Christian Nationalist Senator, Josh Hawley, introduced bill to "regulate" tech firms b/c he's convinced the White Right is being "supressed" when FB, Twitter, et al remove racist violent hate speech. He wants to protect bigots, not privacy. https://t.co/RKrRy1mOTH
— Charles Jaco (@charlesjaco1) June 21, 2019
Washington’s first attempt at regulating Big Tech is Big Fail https://t.co/GNVBwqpgMl
— Vox (@voxdotcom) June 21, 2019
Washington’s first attempt at regulating Big Tech is a joke https://t.co/r2E3p86y9d
— Recode (@Recode) June 21, 2019
Washington’s first attempt at regulating Big Tech is a joke https://t.co/IC4SMxt5lP
— #TheResistance (@SocialPowerOne1) June 21, 2019
.@JonSchweppe writing in @firstthingsmag: Our government has a responsibility to defend our unalienable rights. Not all regulations are inherently bad. This one is so good it just might save the Internet.https://t.co/MnwpWdO6E0
— American Principles (@approject) June 21, 2019
If you listen to @HawleyMO—or read his bill—it’s clear this legislation would defend free speech in the public square from a few multinational corporations’ illegal efforts to censor American citizens and meddle in the 2020 election. #Section230
— Jon Schweppe (@JonSchweppe) June 21, 2019
https://t.co/lUnR2CARMR
Hawley Defends the Public Square | Jon Schweppe | First Things https://t.co/3a0WNbOWdl
— Jack Posobiec ?? (@JackPosobiec) June 20, 2019
Hawley Defends the Public Square | Jon Schweppe | First Things https://t.co/LMHyrIRFPB
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) June 21, 2019
Senator Hawley is right.https://t.co/lUnR2CARMR
— Jon Schweppe (@JonSchweppe) June 20, 2019
Hawley Defends the Public Square https://t.co/TS7wgu67Ss
— Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) June 20, 2019
Hawley Defends the Public Squarehttps://t.co/rmPFiAGp0E
— Matthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) June 20, 2019
Josh Hawley insists he's justified in robbing tech companies of bedrock legal platform protections because the CDA dispenses those protections "in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship."
— Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) June 19, 2019
The CDA says literally nothing of the kind.https://t.co/QAxZwdyLW2
Nothing says “conservative” more than giving sweeping powers over corporate behavior to a bigger federal bureaucracy, amirite? https://t.co/fl230EMlch
— Rachael Larimore (@RachaelBL) June 19, 2019
The whole legislative justification for the radical expansion of government power over tech companies Josh Hawley is proposing is based on an incredibly, laughably spurious reading of the 1996 Communications Decency Act https://t.co/QAxZwdyLW2
— Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) June 19, 2019
What's more conservative than a call for a vast expansion of the federal bureaucracy? @HawleyMO #BigBrother #1A
— StridentConservative (@StridentConserv) June 20, 2019
Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill https://t.co/f0yeI4YpqK via @BulwarkOnline pic.twitter.com/1L0q3Vf9yn
.@gop
— #Amash2020 #PrinciplesFirst (@SahilcdesaiC) June 20, 2019
Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill - The Bulwark https://t.co/9fUKFXprXo
. @EggerDC on Josh Hawley’s bid to expand government control over the internet... https://t.co/X9PFuBGJfx
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) June 19, 2019
Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill https://t.co/3x36FLW5yX via @BulwarkOnline
— Shannon Last (@shannon_last) June 20, 2019
Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill https://t.co/davxxXXGeq via @BulwarkOnline by @eggerdc
— Jim Swift (@JimSwiftDC) June 19, 2019
This is very good (the article, I mean) | Josh Hawley's Terrible, Horrible, No-Good, Very Bad Internet Bill https://t.co/kPPmT3nMkO via @BulwarkOnline
— Avi Woolf, WTF Conservative? (@AviWoolf) June 19, 2019
It's a bad bill, folks. The bill is very bad https://t.co/QAxZwdyLW2
— Andrew Egger (@EggerDC) June 19, 2019
The idea that government should punish companies if their content moderation policies aren't politically neutral ignores fact that some politics is extremely odious.
— Dare Obasanjo (@Carnage4Life) June 21, 2019
Treating all political speech as neutral is government mandated tolerance of hate speech.https://t.co/Dvk0yNObFh
This is fucked up. And stupid. https://t.co/dl01A4XE36
— habit forming timothy (@TimCushing) June 20, 2019
More reading on his insanely stupid bill proposal, if you are into that kind of thing. https://t.co/qhwjwIynYS
— Chris ODonnell (@chrisod) June 19, 2019
If social media firms are worried about being liable for user generated content, they're likely to be more aggressive in taking down any vaguely political content, out of fear that it could put them in legal jeopardy. https://t.co/622Rttgil1
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) June 19, 2019
New post: "Ending immunity for Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube would result in more censorship, not less" https://t.co/622Rttgil1
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) June 19, 2019
Josh Hawley's ‘‘Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act" would lead to more censorship, not less. https://t.co/622Rttgil1
— Philip Klein (@philipaklein) June 19, 2019
"However flawed, the subsidy argument does get Sen. @HawleyMO to a licensing regime for social media." One point in favor of the Missouri senator's bill: it could generate some good precedent when #SCOTUS strikes it down [@JohnSamplesCato] https://t.co/Nqndu7AKg9
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) June 21, 2019
Lots of people say they want Washington to take a firmer hand and start regulating Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies, which have had almost zero oversight for years.
— Recode (@Recode) June 21, 2019
But what if our elected officials can’t hack it?https://t.co/sNd55lih4b
Some conservatives wince at the idea of greater regulation of Big Tech companies. But what other option do we have when powerful multinational corporations are infringing upon the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens?https://t.co/lUnR2CARMR
— Jon Schweppe (@JonSchweppe) June 20, 2019