WASHINGTON — In a direct change of policy from the current presidential administration, President Joe Biden’s very own Department of Justice made a point to defend the constitutionality of Section 230 in a lawsuit brought against Facebook (now Meta) by then-President Donald Trump. Facebook indefinitely banned Trump from the platform after the deadly results of the January 6 invasion of the US Capitol Building.
Trump sued the company for banning the controversial president for several years, claiming that actions taken by the company violate his First Amendment rights and are indicative of Section 230’s apparent unconstitutional nature. Courts across the US judicial system have consistently upheld the constitutionality of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, however, a statute often referred to as the “First Amendment of the Internet,” for the way the law has supported the growth of the web.
“Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr. Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available under the new enforcement protocols,” notes Nick Clegg, Meta’s vice president of global affairs.
“We are suspending his accounts for two years, effective from the date of the initial suspension on January 7 this year,” Clegg added.
A congressional investigation is currently underway, with conflicting litigation creating a minefield of controversy.
Trump’s lawsuit against Meta was intervened upon by the Department of Justice. The federal government argues that Facebook is well within its rights to cite Section 230 as a justification to ban the former president for having violated the platform’s terms of service. The Justice Department filed a notice of intervention and motion to set a deadline for the United States memorandum in defense.
According to the filing, the federal government maintains that it has the “unconditional right to intervene to defend the statute,” as it is always allowed in cases where a federal law’s constitutionality is at issue. The former president filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A judge ruled that the suit must be moved to the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
What makes this noteworthy is that President Biden, like President Trump, has criticized Section 230. Biden previously revoked an executive order issued by Trump that was intended to eliminate the entire law. Biden has also postured along the same lines as Democrats who oppose the law, at one time saying he believes the law should be “immediately revoked.” Trump has publicly condemned the law as well, calling for its repeal.
Adult industry stakeholders should take note of this development, because Section 230 remains a protective measure for porn and NSFW content found across the web. It should be noted that the Free Speech Coalition has been active in lobbying against efforts to revoke Section 230 in Congress. Most recently, the coalition has retained representation from Clarity Consulting, a high-power D.C. lobbying firm.
According to POLITICO, the Free Speech Coalition pays about $30,000 per quarter to lobby Congress and the executive branch. This includes the Treasury Department and the chief regulators of currency and financial networks.
