Bill Details
View committees (1)
AI Summary This summary was generated by AI from the bill text. AI can get information wrong.
This bill would change the rules that protect online platforms from being sued over user content. It would make those protections weaker in cases where a platform limits or hides content after a government request that appears to push, suppress, or influence political speech. The bill also changes who has to prove certain facts in lawsuits, placing more of that burden on the platform or user. In addition, it gives clear exceptions for requests tied to real law enforcement work or national security.
- Online platforms could lose Section 230 protection if they restrict content because of a private communication from a government agency, or from someone acting at the government’s request, when that communication is sent only to the platform.
- The covered content limits are those that appear to promote, suppress, or reduce the visibility of legitimate political speech, including a clear point of view.
- The bill says this rule would not apply when the communication is for a legitimate law enforcement purpose or for national security.
- It also says that if a provider or user wants protection in certain lawsuits, they must prove they are not the original creator of the content in question.
Official Summaries
Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy's Erosion Act or the COLLUDE Act
This bill limits federal liability protection, sometimes referred to as Section 230 protection, that generally precludes providers and users of an interactive computer service (e.g., a social media company) from being held legally responsible for content provided by a third party.
Specifically, the bill removes the protection if a provider restricts access to or availability of content containing political speech because of a governmental request unless the request serves a legitimate law enforcement or national security purpose.
In addition, the bill changes legal procedures for applying the protection. Currently, the protection serves as broad immunity that typically allows the early dismissal of lawsuits, thereby preempting lawsuits and statutes that impose liability for third-party content. This bill makes the protection an affirmative defense, which means the provider or user must prove that the protection applies before the lawsuit may be dismissed.
Current Full Text
[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 69 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
<DOC>
119th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 69
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to address governmental
interference in content moderation decisions by providers of
interactive computer services, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 9, 2025
Mr. Schmitt introduced the following bill; which was read twice and
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to address governmental
interference in content moderation decisions by providers of
interactive computer services, 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 ``Curtailing Online Limitations that
Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy's Erosion Act'' or the ``COLLUDE
Act''.
SEC. 2. CONTENT MODERATION, CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT, AND DISTRIBUTION.
Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ``No provider'' and
inserting the following:
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), no
provider''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Affirmative defense.--In a criminal or civil
action against a provider or user of an interactive
computer service that treats the provider or user as
the publisher or speaker of any information, the
provider or user shall bear the burden of proving that
the provider or user is not an information content
provider with respect to that information for purposes
of subparagraph (A).'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``paragraph
(1)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (A)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Loss of protection in cases of governmental
censorship.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in
subparagraph (B), this subsection shall not apply to a
provider of an interactive computer service that
restricts access to or availability of material--
``(i) in a manner that reasonably appears
to express, promote, limit the visibility of,
or suppress legitimate political speech,
including a discernible viewpoint; and
``(ii) as a result of a communication
that--
``(I) is sent to the provider by--
``(aa) a governmental
entity; or
``(bb) a non-governmental
entity that is acting at the
request or behest of a
governmental entity; and
``(II) the applicable entity under
subclause (I) sends only to the
provider and not to any other entity.
``(B) Exception.--A communication that is for a
legitimate law enforcement purpose or a national
security purpose shall not be considered to be a
communication that is described in subparagraph
(A)(ii).''; and
(2) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Legitimate law enforcement purpose.--The term
`legitimate law enforcement purpose' means, with respect to a
communication, that the purpose of the communication is so that
a law enforcement agency can, within the lawful authority of
that agency, investigate a criminal offense.
``(6) National security purpose.--The term `national
security purpose' means, with respect to a communication, that
the purpose of the communication relates to--
``(A) intelligence activities;
``(B) cryptologic activities that relate to the
national security of the United States;
``(C) command and control of the Armed Forces;
``(D) equipment that is an integral part of a
weapon or a weapons system; or
``(E) the direct fulfillment of a military or
intelligence mission.''.
<all>