4 ms·

Sylvia Garcia is a Democratic senator from Texas and she sponsored the EARN IT Act two of the times they tried to shove it down our throats. That would have for

Sylvia Garcia is a Democratic senator from Texas and she sponsored the EARN IT Act two of the times they tried to shove it down our throats. That would have forced sites to backdoor any encryption.

matthewdgreen 3y ago
There has always been a (small) bipartisan coalition in favor of law enforcement-sponsored anti-encryption legislation, unfortunately. Senator Lindsey Graham has been a vocal sponsor of several bills recently, but he had no problem finding Democrats to co-sponsor them. We have not seen these bills go completely mainstream and get the full partisan treatment. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/graham-cotton-blackburn-introduce-balanced-solution-to-bolster-national-security-end-use-of-warrant-proof-encryption-that-shields-criminal-activity# https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/graham-c...
barbazoo 3y ago
I see, thank you. I wouldn't say this counts as censorship the sense we're talking about though right?
- autoexec 3y ago
  I wouldn't put it in the same category as book burning, but if the law had passed it would certainly have resulted in censorship. > Although the content the EARN IT Act seeks to regulate is abhorrent and the government’s interest in stopping the creation and distribution of that content is compelling, the First Amendment still requires that the law be narrowly tailored to address those weighty concerns. Yet, given the bill’s broad scope, it will inevitably force online platforms to censor the constitutionally protected speech of their users. (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-constitution https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-c...) The Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020 (EARN IT Act) amends an existing federal law to force online platforms into changing how they moderate content online by scanning and censoring more of their users’ communications. (https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-earn-it-act-is-a-disaster-for-online-speech-and-privacy-especially-for-the-lgbtq-and-sex-worker-communities https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-earn-it-act-is-a-d...) If it’s hard for a provider to tell what’s unlawful, but it’ll face legal liability if it gets it wrong, then the obvious incentive is for the provider to avoid the danger zone and censor lots of lawful content along with the unlawful content, just in case. This is exactly why Section 230 immunity is so important, because without it, platforms would constantly censor a lot of legal speech by their American users – maybe your speech – as a byproduct of trying to censor illegal speech, for fear that if they didn’t cast a wide net, some illegal speech would slip through and they’d get sued for it. (https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/03/earn-it-act-unconstitutional-first-first-amendment https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/03/earn-it-act-uncon...)

Sylvia Garcia is a Democratic senator from Texas and she sponsored the EARN IT Act two of the times they tried to shove it down our throats. That would have forced sites to backdoor any encryption.

matthewdgreen 3y ago

There has always been a (small) bipartisan coalition in favor of law enforcement-sponsored anti-encryption legislation, unfortunately. Senator Lindsey Graham has been a vocal sponsor of several bills recently, but he had no problem finding Democrats to co-sponsor them. We have not seen these bills go completely mainstream and get the full partisan treatment. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/graham-cotton-blackburn-introduce-balanced-solution-to-bolster-national-security-end-use-of-warrant-proof-encryption-that-shields-criminal-activity# https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/graham-c...

barbazoo 3y ago

I see, thank you. I wouldn't say this counts as censorship the sense we're talking about though right?

autoexec 3y ago
I wouldn't put it in the same category as book burning, but if the law had passed it would certainly have resulted in censorship. > Although the content the EARN IT Act seeks to regulate is abhorrent and the government’s interest in stopping the creation and distribution of that content is compelling, the First Amendment still requires that the law be narrowly tailored to address those weighty concerns. Yet, given the bill’s broad scope, it will inevitably force online platforms to censor the constitutionally protected speech of their users. (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-constitution https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-c...) The Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2020 (EARN IT Act) amends an existing federal law to force online platforms into changing how they moderate content online by scanning and censoring more of their users’ communications. (https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-earn-it-act-is-a-disaster-for-online-speech-and-privacy-especially-for-the-lgbtq-and-sex-worker-communities https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-earn-it-act-is-a-d...) If it’s hard for a provider to tell what’s unlawful, but it’ll face legal liability if it gets it wrong, then the obvious incentive is for the provider to avoid the danger zone and censor lots of lawful content along with the unlawful content, just in case. This is exactly why Section 230 immunity is so important, because without it, platforms would constantly censor a lot of legal speech by their American users – maybe your speech – as a byproduct of trying to censor illegal speech, for fear that if they didn’t cast a wide net, some illegal speech would slip through and they’d get sued for it. (https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/03/earn-it-act-unconstitutional-first-first-amendment https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2020/03/earn-it-act-uncon...)