The Consumer Technology Association (CTA)® submitted reply comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today arguing against the administration’s efforts to regulate online platforms hosting third-party content. The administration’s proposal would undermine Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, hurt American innovation and embolden China and other countries looking to seize global technology leadership from the United States. CTA’s comments are in response to the FCC’s notice on the petition for rulemaking filed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which seeks to regulate online platforms hosting third-party content. Read the comments
here.
“Regulating online free speech not only violates the First Amendment, it also threatens the United States’ global technology leadership and best-in-the-world innovation,” said Michael Petricone, senior vice president of government affairs, CTA. “NTIA’s ill-considered petition would move us in the direction of authoritarian systems like China, where online speech is subject to government approval and whim. In fact, China should be cheering this effort to undermine Section 230, since it would weaken American innovation leaders and hand market share to their Chinese competitors. The FCC should emphatically deny this petition and, instead, encourage regulators and lawmakers to continue championing online free speech and America’s world-leading technology sector.”
Other key points from CTA’s comments include:
- The NTIA’s petition would hinder U.S. competitiveness, violate the Constitution and far exceed FCC authority.
- The petition pays lip service to the idea of promoting free speech. NTIA’s version of “free speech” is an inversion of the real thing and blurs the line between democracies like the U.S. and authoritarian nations.
- Regulating online free speech would lead to the government picking “winners and losers,” sifting through algorithms and search results to determine whether a particular search term produced “too many” liberal results or “not enough” conservative views.
