|
This is not the case. Also there's no net neutrality legislation -- there's an order from the FCC that's been in place since 2015. And the law you are referring to isn't from the 1930s. It's the 1996 Telecom Act. Here's what the order said about that section: We also note that the restrictions on obscene and illicit content in sections 223 and 231(to the extent enforced)1647—as well as the associated limitations on liability—in many cases, do not vary with the classification decisions in this Order, and thus likewise are not encompassed by the
forbearance in this Order.1648
To the extent that certain of these provisions would benefit broadband providers and could instead be viewed as provisions that are newly applied to broadband providers by
virtue of the classification decisions in this Order, it would better promote broadband deployment, and
thus better serve the public interest, if we continue to apply those provisions.1 Footnote -> We note that many of the relevant provisions in these sections stem from the Child Online Protection Act
(COPA), which federal courts have enjoined from being enforced. COPA amended the Communications Act by
adding sections 230(d) and 231 and amending parts of sections 223(h)(2) and 230(d)–(f). See Child Online
Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 105-277, §§ 1401–05, 112 Stat. 2681-736–2681-741 (1998). After COPA reached the
Supreme Court twice, a federal court held that COPA is unconstitutional and placed a permanent injunction against
its enforcement. The decision was affirmed on appeal, and petition for writ of certiorari has been denied. See ACLU
v. Reno, 31 F. Supp.2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999) (enjoining the enforcement of the Act), aff’d, 217 F.3d 162 (3rd Cir.
2000), vacated and remanded, Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) (finding that the Act’s reference to
contemporary community standards on its own does not render it unconstitutional and the 3rd Circuit must consider
additional matters), aff’d, ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir. 2003), aff’d and remanded, Ashcroft v. ACLU,
542 U.S. 656 (2004) (instructing that the district court should update the factual record and take into account current,
applicable technologies); ACLU v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp.2d 775 (E.D. Pa 2007) (entering a permanent injunction
against enforcement of the Act after holding that it is facially unconstitutional), aff’d, ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d
181 (3rd Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1032 (2009). The Communications Decency Act (CDA) (Pub. L. No.
104-104, §§ 501–02, 110 Stat. 56, 133–36), which amended section 223 of the Communications Act, has also been
overturned in part, by the Supreme Court. See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). However, the constitutionally
offensive parts of the CDA were amended by the PROTECT Act, which is still good law. See Prosecutorial
Remedies and Tools against the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 603, 117
Stat. 650, 687 (2003) https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pd... |