Computer companies are not happy with the news that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have reintroduced the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act.

That is the bill that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Act to say that the section's immunity for online platforms from civil liability for third-party content does not extend to child exploitation, meaning a Facebook or Twitter could be held liable for posts that illegally exploit children.  

It would also establish a National Commission on Online Child Exploitation Prevention to establish best practices for preventing such exploitation.  

The Computer & Communications Industry Association called it a misdirected effort to combat child sexual abuse material online, and that would instead weaken the law (Sec. 230) that companies use to address objectionable third-party material online--without the threat of civil suits.

“Instead of directing more resources toward prosecution of industry-reported content, this bill aims to put a government commission in charge of how digital services operate,” CCIA president Matt Schruers said. “Enforcing existing criminal statutes in known cases would prevent more crime than placing a federal committee in control of how internet services police content.”

Also: EARN IT Act Debut Earns Plenty of Input

Fight for the Future (FFTF) executive director Evan Greer was even tougher on the bill, calling it “[O]ne of the most poorly conceived and dangerous pieces of internet legislation I have seen in my entire career and that’s saying a lot.” Greer said the bill “will trample human rights and online free expression, particularly for trans and queer folks.”

FFTF launched an email campaign against a prior introduction of the bill and plans to update the campaign for the reintroduced bill.

Among those on the other side of the issue are the Parents Television and Media Council (PTC) and the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCSE). 

“The PTC proudly endorses the EARN IT Act of 2022,“ PTC president Tim Winter said. “We applaud the bipartisan and bicameral leadership of Senators Lindsey Graham  and Richard Blumenthal, Reps. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) and Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), and over a dozen co-sponsors from both sides of the political aisle, all of whom have come together with the noble goal of protecting children from the growing and ever-present threats that are so prevalent in today’s toxic digital media environment.”

“Big Tech has no incentive to prevent predators from grooming, recruiting, and trafficking children online and as a result, countless children have fallen victim to child abusers on platforms like Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok,”  NCSE president Patrick A. Trueman said when the bill was first introduced. “EARN IT gives us these missing incentives by making the current gift of immunity under the Communications Decency Act Section 230 conditional. To keep immunity, social media platforms will have to demonstrate they are actively working to prevent online sexual exploitation of minors and child sexual abuse material (CSAM).” ■

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has introduced a bill that would sunset social media networks' Sec. 230 immunity from civil liability for third party content moderation.

The sunset would not come until Jan. 1, 2023, so the bill is more like a spur to some kind of reform to the section between now and then.

“The time has come for these largely unregulated Big Tech giants to either be broken up, regulated, or subject to litigation for their actions,” said Graham in introducing the legislation. “It’s time we put the Section 230 protections these companies enjoy on the clock.”

Graham has been a big backer of President Trump, who has taken aim at what he sees as a legal shield for liberal leaning Silicon Valley companies to censor conservative speech, including his own.

Also Read: Trump Says Sec. 230 Is Election Security Threat

Plenty of Republicans see it the same way, and even Democrats want the section reviewed or eliminated for different reasons, the latter even including President-elect Joe Biden.

But powerful social media companies argue that eliminating the immunity could blow up the social media platform model.

Graham made it clear his bill was meant to light a fire under both sides to come to a meeting of the minds.

Also Read: Rep. Cicciline Calls on Twitter to Suspend Trump Account

“My legislation will repeal Section 230 on January 1, 2023, unless Congress acts sooner," he said. "Congress will have two years to find an acceptable alternative or allow the legal liability protections to go away. I’m hopeful that there will be bipartisan support for this approach.”

Currently the FCC is considering a petition, filed by the Trump Administration, to use Sec. 230 changes to regulate social media sites. FCC chairman Ajit Pai Tuesday (Dec. 15) declined to say whether or not he would try to act on that petition before he exits Jan. 20.

WASHINGTON — A new battle is brewing on Capitol Hill over renewal of the compulsory license that allows satellite operators to deliver distant network TV station signals to markets that lack them, and the legislative vehicle that cable operators would like to use to reform retransmission consent.

The chairs of the Senate committees that jointly oversee the issue, both Republicans, appear to be poles apart, with only a handful of legislative working days left (19 as of Nov. 12) before the license expires and hundreds of thousands of viewers could lose access to their favorite network shows.

The Satellite Television Extension and Localism Act (STELAR) sunsets every five years unless renewed, in this case by Dec. 31.

Broadcasters and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) have been on different sides of this issue for years. TV station owners have lobbied to get rid of the license, which they said allows MVPDs to pay below-market rates while choosing not to deliver local stations into some local markets, instead importing stations from Los Angeles and New York since they have the distant-signal alternative.

MVPDs have said the license allows them to serve viewers whose stations have failed to deliver signals to the markets whose public interest they are duty-bound to serve as the quid pro quo for that free spectrum.

More than 800,000 viewers are in markets where one or all of their network affiliates aren’t available. Also affected are truckers and tailgaters who get distant signals on the road.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, made it clear at a Hill hearing last month that he wants to renew the license, and last week introduced a one-page bill, the Satellite Television Access Reathorization (STAR) Act, that would simply re-up it for five more years.

Wicker said he believed STELAR remained critical for preserving access to video services for rural residents — such as those in his home state — and others on the wrong side of the digital divide. Wicker on Nov. 6 introduced a STELAR reauthorization bill to be marked up Nov. 13.

Cable and satellite operators are rooting for that outcome in hopes of getting some elements of retrans reform — mandatory arbitration, a ban on blackouts — that they have been trying to add to the bill in recent renewal cycles.

That’s because another provision in STELAR that will sunset at year-end unless renewed is the requirement that the FCC ensure broadcasters and cable operators negotiate retrans agreements in good faith.

Enter Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who wrote to the Big Four networks’ top Washington executives a letter that could have been drafted by those lobbyists (see sidebar below). Graham effectively assumed the law was sunsetting and suggested a one-year transition plan for the license to prevent the dislocation of those three quarters of a million viewers.

“The 2011 Copyright Office study Report on Marketplace Alternatives to Replace Statutory Licenses urged the end of the compulsory video licenses in Title 17,” Graham wrote. “Three years later, Congress agreed and the STELA Reauthorization Act of 2014 extended the Section 119 Compulsory license in our nation’s copyright laws only until Dec. 31, 2019. As this expiration date approaches, I am writing to inquire about ABC’s transition plan to a free market at the end of this calendar year to avoid any impact on consumers.”

Graham was right about the Copyright Office, which has indeed recommended a sunset. But saying Congress agreed is a bit of a stretch since the law did not sunset it in 2014. Instead it was renewed for the full five years until 2019.

Cable lobbyists countered the Graham missive with one of their own, circulating a letter to the Hill from the powerful International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers calling for renewal.

Given the divide between broadcasters and MVPDs, and now between Graham and Wicker, it is unlikely that either extreme sought — major retrans reform in a renewed STELAR on one hand, or a sunset and transition to the “free market” Graham invoked repeatedly in his letter — will be the result.

A more likely outcome would be renewal, but perhaps on a shorter, three-year time frame. It’s also possible that with so few days left, lawmakers fail to reach agreement and extend the license for a month or two into the New Year, as happened two cycles ago.

Graham’s Un-STELAR Free-Market Glide Path

WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) laid out a plan for transitioning from the compulsory satellite license, but posed in the form of a series of questions to top lobbyists at the four major broadcast networks:

• “Is [your network] willing to provide a one-year license to satellite providers for network]-owned shows, provided you receive market-by-market usage data from each satellite provider, including the total usage by long distance truckers and RV owners?

• “Will the rate [your network] charges for your shows be comparable to the 2018 rate set by the Copyright Royalty Board for the compulsory Section 119 license?

• “Will [you] commit to supporting your affiliates as they negotiate with satellite providers during this one-year transition period on a carriage agreement for full local-into-local on both satellite providers that would begin no later than Jan. 1, 2021?

• “For areas without local affiliates, will [your network] commit to negotiating with both satellite providers during this one-year transition period on a carriage agreement that would begin no later than Jan. 1, 2021?

• “Will [your network] commit to regularly informing my committee of your ongoing efforts to reach such carriage agreements?”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), fresh from a deep dive into Chinese telecoms in 5G broadband nets, wants to look into the intersection of data privacy, competition and advertising. 

Capitol Hill is laser focused on edge providers as it contemplates regulating privacy and maybe more, not to mention the calls to break up social media giants whose ad policies, particularly political and targeted ads accused of algorithmic discrimination, has drawn scrutiny from Capitol Hill.  

The hearing, “Understanding the Digital Advertising Ecosystem and the Impact of Data Privacy and Competition Policy," is scheduled for May 21 at 10 a.m. 

It will be a busy day for online advertising in Senate committees. The Judiciary hearing is not to be confused with the Senate Communications Subcommittee hearing on the impact of algorithmic decision-making and machine learning on internet platforms, which was also announced Tuesday (May 14) and is being held at 2:30 in the afternoon, so algorithm groupies can attend both. 

No word on witnesses for the Judiciary hearing.  

Two top Republican senators have asked for all the surveillance warrants the FBI requested from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court as part of the Bureau's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including possible collusion with the campaign of Donald Trump.

In seeking the warrants, Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Crime and Terrorist Subcommittee chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have cited stories by the BBC, as well as CNN (which President Trump continues to brand as "fake news").

The two networks have reported that the Justice Department had asked the court for authority to monitor members of the Trump presidential campaign, but the court denied the request, advising the FBI to narrow its focus.

Grassley and Graham said, based on the reports, they want copies of both classified and non-classified requests.

Both Congress and the FBI are investigating Russia’s meddling in the presidential election and whether the Trump campaign colluded in that effort. The president has said any suggestion of that is fake news served up by media “enemies” in service of his Democratic opponents, who he says are trying to undermine his presidency.