First, we previously commented on the suggestion by a Harvard professor that Section 230 changes should be considered. Then ran headlong into a free speech debate about whether the new Federal Trade Commission guidelines creating liability for false advertising could be an exception to Section 230 immunity. The fact that Section 230 "scholars" disagree is enough to convince me that the FTC may just not like the limitations it arguably (albeit not convincingly) must abide by in enforcing online consumer fraud.
Now comes a new bill filed by Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Dem. from Pa., which would flat out amend Section 230 immunity in cases in which an ISP knows or should know of financial securities misrepresentations by someone using its services and make ISPs liable for all resulting damages incurred by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation.
There is clearly a move afoot. Is it that we are just realizing how overly broad Section 230 really is?
I can hear it now...in the hearing rooms, offices and halls of Congress, when they finally realize the grossly overbroad scope of the immunity granted by Congress to scofflaws and crooks and miscreants.
These Congressmen and Congressmadams will look at their legal counsel, tilt their head, and ask innocently and inquisitively the following:
"We did what?"