Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends 47 U.S.C. 230 to limit or remove certain Section 230(c) immunities related to screening, removing, or restricting access to material. It changes wording in subsection (c)(2) and adds a new subparagraph making actions that offer users options to restrict access potentially outside Section 230 protections.
Progressives emphasize harms to moderation and vulnerable users
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and specific substantive amendment to 47 U.S.C. 230(c) that narrows immunity for certain content-moderation actions.
This bill amends 47 U.S.C. 230 to limit or remove certain Section 230(c) immunities related to screening, removing, or restricting access to material.
It changes wording in subsection (c)(2) and adds a new subparagraph making actions that offer users options to restrict access potentially outside Section 230 protections.
The bill is titled the Stop the Censorship Act and was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Short statutory text but transformative effects, high controversy, litigation risk, and absence of compromise features reduce enactment prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and specific substantive amendment to 47 U.S.C. 230(c) that narrows immunity for certain content-moderation actions. The operative legal mechanism is clearly targeted, but the bill provides minimal supporting detail on definitions, implementation timing, fiscal effects, interaction with other law beyond the immediate textual amendment, mitigation of edge cases, or post-enactment accountability.
Progressives emphasize harms to moderation and vulnerable users
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harms to moderation and vulnerable users
Likely opposed.
They would view the bill as undermining platforms' ability to moderate harmful speech and protect vulnerable users.
They worry it would chill content-moderation, increase online abuse, and disadvantage marginalized groups.
Mixed/leaning skeptical.
They see a legitimate concern about perceived platform censorship but worry about legal uncertainty, litigation costs, and unintended incentives to over-censor.
They would seek narrow fixes and cost controls.
Likely supportive.
They would view this as a corrective to alleged viewpoint-based censorship by large platforms, holding them accountable for removing constitutionally protected speech.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Short statutory text but transformative effects, high controversy, litigation risk, and absence of compromise features reduce enactment prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harms to moderation and vulnerable users
Short statutory text but transformative effects, high controversy, litigation risk, and absence of compromise features reduce enactment pro…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a direct and specific substantive amendment to 47 U.S.C. 230(c) that narrows immunity for certain content-moderation actions. The operative legal mechanism is clea…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.