HR-908-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
What it does
This bill would modify Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which currently shields online platforms from legal liability when they remove or restrict content they consider "obscene, lewd, lascivious, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." The bill would eliminate that broad liability shield and replace it with two narrower protections: platforms would be shielded only when they remove content that is actually unlawful, or when they give users tools to filter content themselves. Platforms that continue to remove legal content based on their own editorial judgment would lose their liability protection for those moderation decisions.
Who benefits
Users whose legal content has been removed or restricted by platforms, who would gain a potential legal avenue to challenge those decisions. Speakers with minority or controversial viewpoints who argue their content is disproportionately moderated. Small content creators who believe they have been de-platformed without clear justification. Developers of user-controlled filtering tools, who would gain a new protected business model. Plaintiffs' attorneys who would gain new causes of action against platforms.
Who is hurt
Large social media platforms (Meta, X, YouTube, TikTok, etc.) that would face increased litigation risk for content moderation decisions. Smaller platforms and startups with fewer legal resources to defend against lawsuits. Internet users broadly, if platforms respond by either over-moderating (removing only clearly unlawful content to stay safe) or under-moderating (leaving up harmful but legal content to avoid liability). Advertisers whose brand safety concerns depend on platform moderation. Child safety advocates who rely on platforms proactively removing harmful-but-legal content targeting minors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that Section 230's "otherwise objectionable" clause has been stretched far beyond its original intent, allowing platforms to suppress legal speech with no accountability. They contend that platforms have used this broad immunity to systematically remove political, religious, and cultural viewpoints they disfavor, citing documented cases of content removal affecting conservative, libertarian, and other minority voices. They argue that limiting the shield to unlawful content restores the original bargain of Section 230 and forces platforms to be transparent and consistent in their moderation, while still protecting them from liability for genuinely illegal material.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that removing the broad liability shield would make it legally risky for platforms to proactively remove harmful-but-legal content — such as health misinformation, harassment campaigns, and content exploiting minors — because any such removal could trigger a lawsuit. They contend that the resulting litigation burden would be most severe for small and mid-sized platforms that lack the legal resources of major companies, potentially consolidating power among the largest players. They further argue that the bill conflicts with the Supreme Court's holding in Moody v. NetChoice (2024), which recognized platforms' content moderation as protected editorial discretion that the government cannot compel or penalize.
Constitutional context
The bill directly implicates the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in Moody v. NetChoice, which held that platforms' content moderation decisions constitute protected editorial discretion. By removing liability protection for platforms that moderate legal content, the bill could effectively penalize platforms for exercising that constitutionally protected discretion, raising compelled-speech concerns. The Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3) provides Congress the authority to regulate internet platforms as interstate commerce, but the First Amendment limits how that regulation may constrain editorial choices.
Checks and balances
Congress would narrow the scope of platform immunity; courts would gain authority to adjudicate platform moderation decisions in civil suits; platforms retain First Amendment editorial discretion as a potential defense, creating a judicial check on the bill's practical reach.
Historical precedent
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996) originally established the broad liability shield this bill would narrow; multiple prior reform proposals (EARN IT Act, PACT Act) have attempted to modify Section 230 but none have been enacted.