

State AGs Ask Congress to Gut Critical CDA 230 Online Speech Protections - MrKurtz
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/07/state-ags-threaten-gut-cda-230-speech-protections

======
rayiner
I recommend you actually read the letter (it's just two pages not including
signatures--shorter than the EFF's hysterical description of it):
[https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-
letter.pdf](https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/cda-ag-letter.pdf).

They're asking Congress to add two words to the CDA:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of
section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110
(relating to sexual exploitation of children) of Title 18, or any other
Federal _or State_ criminal statute."

(Addition emphasized.)

This is in response to a W.D. Wash. decision that determined that the CDA
preempted state criminal law. They're asking for it to be modified to say that
the CDA does not preempt state criminal law.

~~~
Retric
If it does not override state law then it's next to useless. As in any new
federal law could override it so the long term protection is simply at the
state level.

~~~
rayiner
Look, I think federalism is stupid, and best understood as the Framers'
attempt at a jobs-program for lawyers. That said, it's not unreasonable for
State AG's to chaffe at a federal telecom law preempting their state criminal
laws. Legislating criminal law is one of the core function of the individual
states. Yes, that makes it complicated if you're an internet company and
operate in 50 different states with 50 different criminal laws, but well tough
nuts. At the very least, this letter is not some far-reaching attempt to gut
the CDA's protections.

~~~
DannyBee
While not unreasonable, removing the burden of interstate commerce is exactly
one of the reason congress exists. The fact that every state wants to do
something to internet companies is _one of the whole reasons for CDA_.

You are right this isn't a "far reaching" attempt, it's a very simple attempt,
but it's still trying to gut most of CDA's protections.

~~~
rayiner
I think the orthodox interpretation of the commerce power is that it is
intended to allow Congress to enact uniform economic regulation and prevent
states from enacting economic regulation that prejudices out of state
businesses. It's not intended to make doing business in multiple states easier
by steamrolling over state criminal laws that only have an incidental effect
on businesses.

~~~
DannyBee
Don't get me wrong, i'm actually a big fan of limited commerce power
("cumulative effect on the national economy" my ass), but i still see it as a
bit larger than you do.

~~~
rayiner
I'm not saying that the commerce power doesn't give Congress the right to
preempt state criminal law in this case. I think we're in agreement that it
does. But I don't think it's the _purpose_ of the commerce power to make
running an inter-state business easier simply by preempting state law that
doesn't regulate commerce, simply to make compliance easier. By that
reasoning, Congress should preempt state tax law, financial laws, etc.

------
jessaustin
Evidence in the original letter from the AGs is pretty thin. As the entirety
of their proof of "countless instances of child sex trafficking that occurs
[sic] every day", they offer... three (three!!!) instances this year of some
dirtbag "pimp" posting something on Backpage.com. In every such instance, the
posts interfered in no way with said dirtbag's arrest and prosecution. It's as
if they know that all the law-and-order fans won't read the damn thing, but
they'll still get on HN and talk out of their asses.

George Mason wept.

What else would anyone expect from a bunch of drug-war prosecutors?

------
wheaties
I blame ignorance and not malice. Then again, I wouldn't want to blemish a
prosecutor's high conviction rate by invoking basic human liberties like
expressing an opinion. Just think what might happen to the children.

------
jbooth
I remember back in the 90s, the CDA was seen as an outrage by the internet
savvy.

Now it's our last line of defense? What the hell happened?

~~~
rayiner
The Supreme Court gutted the CDA by holding parts unconstitutional, and what
was left was the safe-harbor provision which is actually a good idea. See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Lega...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act#Legal_challenges).

~~~
jbooth
Thanks

------
jellicle
Yep, they're trying to get rid of the provision that says ISPs/forums/etc.
can't be held responsible for content their users post. If successful, they
intend to... hold ISPs/forums/etc. responsible for content their users post.

This would be bad. People who operate ISPs/forums/etc. should oppose this
attempt to change the law.

In particular, the Attorneys General are trying to shut down backpage.com
(craigslist competitor) because some people use it to post smutty ads. But if
the change they suggest were to be made, it would be open season to enforce
any state law via attacks on the online services that people use.

