PHARMACIST STEVE

     Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding censorship and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“Section 230”). Understanding your views helps me better represent Florida in the United States Senate, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

     Section 230 provides internet companies with two avenues of legal immunity. The first ensures that companies are not treated as publishers or speakers for any content provided by their users or others on their platforms. The second protects certain content moderation decisions made in good faith. However, recent actions by social media companies, such as political censorship and the application of editorial decisions to content, call into question whether these legal carve-outs are still appropriate.

     The once nascent, scrappy internet startups that benefited from the protections afforded by Section 230 in its early days have become Goliaths intent on twisting and manipulating America’s public square to their liking. While Section 230 can serve an important purpose, it should not protect platforms when they engage in unrelated activities such as political activism or editorial decision-making. It is time to take a fresh look at the statute and enact measures to protect free speech. As private companies, Big Tech can engage in partisan editorializing and politically motivated online speech policing, but they do not deserve special legal protection while they do.

     You may be aware that on May 28, 2020, the Trump Administration issued Executive Order 13925 on Preventing Online Censorship directing the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) to promulgate regulations that narrow the scope of Section 230’s immunity provisions by defining the statute’s “good faith” requirement and clarify whether protections apply when a service provider restricts access to content in a manner not specifically contemplated under the “good faith” requirement of this subsection.

     On June 9, 2020, I led several of my colleagues in a letter to the FCC regarding the Commission’s vital role in Executive Order 13925 and urged the Commission to clarify Section 230 protections for social media companies by defining the criteria for which companies can receive protections under the statute. On October 15, 2020, I wrote again to the FCC, encouraging the Commission to engage proactively in the rulemaking process pursuant to Executive Order 13925 after social media companies actively censored a major news story about the family of a presidential candidate twenty days before the general election.

     I am also an original cosponsor of the Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act (S.3983). This legislation was introduced on June 17, 2020, by Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and was referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. This bill would empower Americans to hold Big Tech companies accountable for acting in bad faith by selectively censoring political speech and hiding content created by their competitors.

     I will continue to look for ways to engage with my colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the administration, on workable solutions regarding this important matter.

     It is an honor and a privilege to serve you as your United States Senator. I will keep your thoughts in mind as I consider these issues and continue working to ensure America remains a safe and prosperous nation.

Sincerely,

Marco Rubio
U.S. Senator

Each week I provide a weekly update on issues in Washington and ways in which my office can assist the people of Florida. Sign up here for updates on my legislative efforts, schedule of events throughout Florida, constituent services and much more.