Cyber Law Expert: Politicized Anti-Section 230 Proposals Target Adult Content

Cyber Law Expert: Politicized Anti-Section 230 Proposals Target Adult Content

WASHINGTON — In a damning new op-ed, one of the nation’s foremost cyber law experts described the onslaught of legislative proposals and recommendations to abolish Section 230 — the so-called “First Amendment of the internet — recently unleashed by the White House, Attorney General William Barr, Senator Lindsey Graham and others, as “Trump-backed rules for online speech: 'no' to porn, 'yes' to election disinformation and hate speech.”

The op-ed’s author, Daphne Keller, is Platform Regulation Director at the Stanford Cyber Policy Center. It was published on Thursday by Slate as part of the Free Speech Project, a collaboration between Future Tense and the Tech, Law & Security Program at American University Washington College of Law which examines the ways technology is influencing how we think about speech.

Future Tense is a partnership of pioneering online publication Slate, New America and Arizona State University to focus on emerging technologies, public policy and society.

Keller’s op-ed is a lucid summation of the sad condition of the Section 230 debate, now completely eroded and politicized by a carnival of competing bipartisan bills.

As XBIZ has reported, none of these proposals are identical; each of them prioritizes the specific interests of their sponsors, from Graham’s insistence in creating a new government bureaucracy to make decisions about what deserves protection from liability and what does not, to the folksy cluelessness of Senator John Kennedy’s bizarre obsession with mind control and manipulation, to the more bipartisan PACT Act, which many observers consider the "adults-in-the-room" option.

Taking Down Pornography

Keller starts off by mentioning an unusually intrusive legislative recommendation by Barr’s Justice Department, one of several of Lindsey Graham’s anti-230 projects on the table.

“Both proposals were prompted by President Trump’s June 2020 executive order on social media, and revising the rules for platform content moderation reportedly remains one of the president’s top priorities for congressional Republicans,” Keller wrote. “The draft laws are extremely revealing about their proponents’ values and priorities, which include taking down pornography and other ‘lawful-but-awful’ online content, but not taking down things like hate speech and electoral disinformation.”

In earlier proposals, Keller continued, “Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley called for platforms to protect all speech, or to somehow create politically ‘neutral’ rules. The DOJ and Graham bills abandon that approach and instead spell out their drafters’ speech preferences. They would keep immunity in place only for specified categories of 'lawful-but-awful' speech, including pornography, barely legal harassment and pro-terrorist or pro-suicide material. But platforms would face new legal exposure if they take down content for reasons not included in this government-approved list — such as Holocaust denial, white supremacist racial theories and electoral disinformation.”

“Apparently in these lawmakers’ value systems, platforms should be free to take down 'The Virgin Suicides,' but not 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' recommendations to cure COVID-19 by ingesting bleach or misleading information about voting by mail,” Keller writes.

Keller points out that Democrats “haven’t been shy about telling platforms how to moderate user speech, either — they just have different preferred rules. Recent letters from Democrats in Congress have urged platforms to take stronger measures against election- and COVID-related disinformation, ‘violent, objectifying or dehumanizing speech’ about women and white supremacist recruitment and organizing.”

The op-ed also points out that the current phrasing of Section 230, which gave us the internet as we know it, was carefully crafted as “necessary to avoid the ‘moderator’s dilemma,’ in which fear of liability for unlawful user speech deters platforms from trying to moderate content at all.”

To read “Trump-Backed Rules for Online Speech: No to Porn, Yes to Election Disinformation and Hate Speech,” visit Slate.

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

Supreme Court Rules Against Adult Industry in Pivotal Texas AV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued its decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, striking a blow against the online adult industry by ruling in support of Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

North Carolina Passes Extreme Bill Targeting Adult Sites

The North Carolina state legislature this week ratified a bill that would impose new regulations that industry observers have warned could push adult websites and platforms to ban most adult creators and content.

Supreme Court Ruling Due Friday in FSC v. Paxton AV Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on Friday in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the adult industry trade association's challenge to Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181.

Ofcom: More Porn Providers Commit to Age Assurance Measures

A number of adult content providers operating in the U.K. have confirmed that they plan to introduce age checks in compliance with the Online Safety Act by the July 25 deadline, according to U.K. media regulator Ofcom.

Aylo Says It Will Comply With UK Age Assurance Requirements

Tech and media company Aylo, which owns various adult properties including Pornhub, YouPorn and Redtube, plans to introduce age assurance methods in the United Kingdom that satisfy government rules under the Online Safety Act, the company has announced.

Kyrgyzstan Parliament Approves Measure Outlawing Internet Porn

The Supreme Council of Kyrgyzstan on Wednesday passed legislation outlawing online adult content in the country.

Trial Set for Lawsuit by U Wisconsin Professor Fired Over Adult Content

A trial date of June 22, 2026, has been set for the civil lawsuit filed by veteran communications professor Joe Gow against the University of Wisconsin board of regents, which fired him for creating and appearing in adult content.

New UK Task Force Meets to Target Adult Content

The architect of an influential report that recommended banning adult content deemed “degrading, violent and misogynistic” has convened an “Independent Pornography Review task force” aimed at translating that report’s findings into action in the U.K.

11:11 Creations Launches Affiliate Program

11:11 Creations principal Alicia Silver has launched 11:11 Cash for creators and affiliates.

Pineapple Support, Pornhub to Host 'Self Love' Support Group

Pineapple Support and Pornhub are hosting a free online support group for performers to develop self-love.

Show More