[NEW] 47 U.S. Code § 230 – Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material | allow อ่านว่า – NATAVIGUIDES

Editorial Notes

Section 509 of Pub. L. 104–104 , which directed amendment of title II of the Communications Act of 1934 ( 47 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) by adding section 230 at end, was executed by adding the section at end of part I of title II of the Act to reflect the probable intent of Congress and amendments by sections 101(a), (b), and 151(a) of Pub. L. 104–104 designating §§ 201 to 229 as part I and adding parts II (§ 251 et seq.) and III (§ 271 et seq.) to title II of the Act.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

“The amendments made by this section [amending this section] shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [ ], and the amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred, or is alleged to have occurred, before, on, or after such date of enactment.”

“Nothing in this Act [see Short Title of 2018 Amendment note set out under section 1 of Title 18 , Crimes and Criminal Procedure] or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to limit or preempt any civil action or criminal prosecution under Federal law or State law (including State statutory law and State common law) filed before or after the day before the date of enactment of this Act [ ] that was not limited or preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 47 U.S.C. 230 ), as such section was in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.”

clarification of such section is warranted to ensure that such section does not provide such protection to such websites.”

websites that promote and facilitate prostitution have been reckless in allowing the sale of sex trafficking victims and have done nothing to prevent the trafficking of children and victims of force, fraud, and coercion; and

section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 47 U.S.C. 230 ; commonly known as the ‘ Communications Decency Act of 1996 ’) was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims;

Executive Documents

Ex. Ord. No. 13925. Preventing Online Censorship

Ex. Ord. No. 13925, , 85 F.R. 34079, provided:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Free speech is the bedrock of American democracy. Our Founding Fathers protected this sacred right with the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people.

In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet. This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.

The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.

As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet. Such debate is just as important online as it is in our universities, our town halls, and our homes. It is essential to sustaining our democracy.

Online platforms are engaging in selective censorship that is harming our national discourse. Tens of thousands of Americans have reported, among other troubling behaviors, online platforms “flagging” content as inappropriate, even though it does not violate any stated terms of service; making unannounced and unexplained changes to company policies that have the effect of disfavoring certain viewpoints; and deleting content and entire accounts with no warning, no rationale, and no recourse.

Twitter now selectively decides to place a warning label on certain tweets in a manner that clearly reflects political bias. As has been reported, Twitter seems never to have placed such a label on another politician’s tweet. As recently as last week, Representative Adam Schiff was continuing to mislead his followers by peddling the long-disproved Russian Collusion Hoax, and Twitter did not flag those tweets. Unsurprisingly, its officer in charge of so-called “Site Integrity” has flaunted his political bias in his own tweets.

At the same time online platforms are invoking inconsistent, irrational, and groundless justifications to censor or otherwise restrict Americans’ speech here at home, several online platforms are profiting from and promoting the aggression and disinformation spread by foreign governments like China. One United States company, for example, created a search engine for the Chinese Communist Party that would have blacklisted searches for “human rights,” hid data unfavorable to the Chinese Communist Party, and tracked users determined appropriate for surveillance. It also established research partnerships in China that provide direct benefits to the Chinese military. Other companies have accepted advertisements paid for by the Chinese government that spread false information about China’s mass imprisonment of religious minorities, thereby enabling these abuses of human rights. They have also amplified China’s propaganda abroad, including by allowing Chinese government officials to use their platforms to spread misinformation regarding the origins of the COVID–19 pandemic, and to undermine pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong.

As a Nation, we must foster and protect diverse viewpoints in today’s digital communications environment where all Americans can and should have a voice. We must seek transparency and accountability from online platforms, and encourage standards and tools to protect and preserve the integrity and openness of American discourse and freedom of expression.

Sec. 2. Protections Against Online Censorship. (a) It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints.

Section 230(c) was designed to address early court decisions holding that, if an online platform restricted access to some content posted by others, it would thereby become a “publisher” of all the content posted on its site for purposes of torts such as defamation. As the title of section 230(c) makes clear, the provision provides limited liability “protection” to a provider of an interactive computer service (such as an online platform) that engages in “ ‘Good Samaritan’ blocking” of harmful content. In particular, the Congress sought to provide protections for online platforms that attempted to protect minors from harmful content and intended to ensure that such providers would not be discouraged from taking down harmful material. The provision was also intended to further the express vision of the Congress that the internet is a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” 47 U.S.C. 230(a)(3). The limited protections provided by the statute should be construed with these purposes in mind.

In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that—far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content—instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.

(b) To advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order [ ], the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

(i) the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;

(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:

(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or

(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and

(iii) any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

Sec. 3. Protecting Federal Taxpayer Dollars from Financing Online Platforms That Restrict Free Speech. (a) The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms. Such review shall include the amount of money spent, the online platforms that receive Federal dollars, and the statutory authorities available to restrict their receipt of advertising dollars.

(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency shall report its findings to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

(c) The Department of Justice shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report described in subsection (b) of this section and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.

Sec. 4. Federal Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices. (a) It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. The Supreme Court has noted that social media sites, as the modern public square, “can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). Communication through these channels has become important for meaningful participation in American democracy, including to petition elected leaders. These sites are providing an important forum to the public for others to engage in free expression and debate. Cf. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 85–89 (1980).

(b) In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

(c) The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, pursuant to section 45 of title 15, United States Code. Such unfair or deceptive acts or practice may include practices by entities covered by section 230 that restrict speech in ways that do not align with those entities’ public representations about those practices.

(d) For large online platforms that are vast arenas for public debate, including the social media platform Twitter, the FTC shall also, consistent with its legal authority, consider whether complaints allege violations of law that implicate the policies set forth in section 4(a) of this order. The FTC shall consider developing a report describing such complaints and making the report publicly available, consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 5. State Review of Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices and Anti-Discrimination Laws. (a) The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

(b) Complaints described in section 4(b) of this order will be shared with the working group, consistent with applicable law. The working group shall also collect publicly available information regarding the following:

(i) increased scrutiny of users based on the other users they choose to follow, or their interactions with other users;

(ii) algorithms to suppress content or users based on indications of political alignment or viewpoint;

(iii) differential policies allowing for otherwise impermissible behavior, when committed by accounts associated with the Chinese Communist Party or other anti-democratic associations or governments;

(iv) reliance on third-party entities, including contractors, media organizations, and individuals, with indicia of bias to review content; and

(v) acts that limit the ability of users with particular viewpoints to earn money on the platform compared with other users similarly situated.

Sec. 6. Legislation. The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Sec. 7. Definition. For purposes of this order, the term “online platform” means any website or application that allows users to create and share content or engage in social networking, or any general search engine.

Sec. 8. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Donald J. Trump.

AIG Travel continues to closely monitor the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and its ongoing impact on travel.  While we will endeavor to provide periodic updates regarding travel safety, travelers should consult the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) websites for the most up-to-date information on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Please note that due to the WHO announcement on March 11, 2020, declaring COVID-19 a pandemic, COVID-19 is considered a foreseen event, and as a result, certain coverages will not apply. Please read the details here .

If you are considering canceling your trip due to the COVID-19 pandemic, please read your insurance policy thoroughly.  

If your travel has been cancelled by your travel supplier (e.g. airline, cruise line, tour operator), you may be eligible for a premium voucher that you can use for future travel.  For more information on vouchers and how they may apply to your situation, as well as premium refunds generally, please see the question below “Can I cancel my insurance and get my premium refunded?”

The following are the questions we are receiving most frequently in our Service Center:

Frequently Asked Questions regarding COVID-19 and Travel Insurance

Am I covered if I contract COVID-19?

If you contract COVID-19 prior to your departure, you may be covered for Trip Cancellation if there is a confirmed diagnosis, including proof of illness from your doctor that states you are medically unable to travel at the time of departure.

If you become ill with COVID-19 while on a covered trip, you could be covered for Medical Expense, Trip Interruption, Trip Delay, and Emergency Medical Evacuation benefits if there is a confirmed diagnosis, including proof of illness from a doctor.

• Trip Interruption can provide coverage for the unused portion of your prepaid and non-refundable expenses, as well as additional transportation expenses incurred to return home or rejoin your trip.
• Trip Delay can provide coverage for additional expenses you may incur for hotel, meals and certain transportation costs incurred if you are required by a physician to quarantine.
• Medical Expense and Emergency Medical Evacuation can provide coverage for medical expenses incurred while being treated for COVID-19.

These coverages are subject to the terms and conditions of your insurance policy. Please click here to access a copy of your insurance policy.

What happens if I am quarantined due to contracting COVID-19 while on a trip?

If you are quarantined as a result of COVID-19, you could be covered under the Trip Interruption/Curtailment, Trip Delay, and/or Medical Expense benefits. A confirmed diagnosis and proof of illness from a physician is required. Coverage is subject to the terms and conditions of your insurance policy. Please click here to access a copy of your policy.

What happens if I am traveling to a country that requires a COVID-19 test when I arrive, and I test positive?

AIG Travel is treating COVID-19 like any other unexpected illness. When you arrive, if you test positive for the virus, you could be eligible for coverage. If a doctor requires you to be hospitalized or quarantined, you could be eligible for Trip Interruption, Trip Delay, Medical Expense and Emergency Medical Evacuation coverage. A confirmed diagnosis and proof of illness from a physician is required. Coverage is subject to the terms and conditions of your insurance policy. Please click here to access a copy of your policy.

I want to cancel my travel plans because I’m afraid to travel due to the COVID-19. Am I covered?

Trip cancellation that is due solely to concern or fear of travel related to an epidemic or pandemic, including COVID-19, is not covered. 

If the cancellation of your trip is not covered, you may be eligible for an insurance premium refund or a travel insurance voucher. For more information on refunds and vouchers, see the question below regarding “Can I cancel my insurance and get my premium refunded?”

The U.S. State Department has advised against non-essential travel.  Am I covered due to the U.S. State Department warning?

There is no coverage for travel restrictions or travel warnings issued by any governmental body or health authority. However, we suggest you contact your travel providers to seek a refund. Should you have other unused, non-refundable, pre-paid trip costs, consult the Unforeseen events portion of your insurance policy. You are encouraged to file a claim if one of the covered reasons could possibly apply to your situation. Please click here to access a copy of your policy.   

You may also be eligible for an insurance premium refund or a travel insurance voucher. For more information on refunds and vouchers, see the question below regarding “Can I cancel my insurance and get my premium refunded?”

Can I cancel my insurance and get my premium refunded?

You may be eligible for a refund of your premium under the following conditions:

• You are requesting a refund from Travel Guard within 15 days of purchasing your policy,
• Your request for a premium refund is made prior to the departure date listed on your policy, and
• You have not filed a claim.

For residents of the State of New York or Kansas, please follow this link. Click here to apply for your refund.

If you cancelled your insurance policy due to COVID-19 concerns but are not eligible for a refund given the criteria listed above, you may be eligible instead for a travel insurance premium voucher for the full value of the policy purchased under the following conditions:

• You request a voucher prior to your trip departure date,
• You confirm that you have not incurred any travel supplier fees, penalties, or unused, non-refundable, pre-paid trip costs, and
• You have not filed a claim.

The voucher can then be used as form of payment toward the purchase of a future policy. The premium for your new policy will be calculated based on the details of your new trip. If the new premium is greater than your original premium, there will be additional premium charged. If the new premium is less than your original premium, no amount of the original premium will be refunded. The voucher is a courtesy accommodation and has no cash value. Please note that once you cancel your policy and receive a voucher, you will not be able to file a claim against the original policy or trip.

All premium vouchers are valid for two years from issuance date. Click here to apply for your voucher.

If I rebook my covered trip for later in the year, can I apply the travel insurance premium from my original trip to the rebooked trip?

If the request is made prior to your travel dates, you may modify your insurance policy and apply the entire premium paid to a new booked trip. In order to make a change to the travel dates listed on your policy, the new travel dates cannot be more than one year beyond the original travel dates. Your new premium will be calculated based on the details of your rebooked trip. If the new premium is greater than your original premium, there will be additional premium charged. If the new premium is less than your original premium, no amount of the original premium will be refunded. Please note that once you modify your policy, you will not be able to file a claim against the original policy or trip. To modify your insurance policy, please click here. 

I have upcoming travel. Will I be able to cancel my trip and be reimbursed?

It depends on the reason for cancellation. If you need to cancel your travel plans, please consult the “Unforeseen” events portion of your insurance policy to see a list of reasons for Trip Cancellation that may be covered, along with General Exclusions from coverage. If one of the covered reasons could apply to your situation, you may be eligible to be reimbursed for your unused, non-refundable, pre-paid trip costs if you need to cancel your trip. Please be specific about why you cancelled, as coverage depends on the exact reason for cancellation. Please click here to access a copy of your insurance policy. 

If the cancellation of your trip is not covered, you may be eligible for an insurance premium refund or a travel insurance voucher. For more information on refunds and vouchers, see the question above regarding “Can I cancel my insurance and get my premium refunded?”

What if the airline, cruise line or travel supplier cancels my flight, cruise, tour, etc. due to COVID-19?

If the airline, cruise line or travel supplier cancels your travel arrangements due to COVID-19, there would be no coverage under the insurance policy. However, we suggest you contact the airline, cruise line or travel supplier to seek a refund. Should you have other unused, non-refundable, pre-paid trip costs, please consult the “Unforeseen” events portion of your insurance policy to see details of the events covered under your policy. Please click here to access a copy of your policy.   

Even though the cancellation of your travel arrangements is likely not covered, you may be eligible for an insurance premium refund or a travel insurance voucher. For more information on refunds and vouchers, see the question above regarding “Can I cancel my insurance and get my premium refunded?”

Am I covered if I have Cancel for Any Reason coverage?

If you purchased Cancel for Any Reason (CFAR) coverage, regardless of the reason for cancellation, you may be covered for a percentage of the loss provided the trip is cancelled more than 48 hours prior to the scheduled departure date. The amount of coverage will be based on the level of CFAR coverage purchased. Please click here to access a copy of your policy.

Can I purchase a policy with CFAR coverage?  

CFAR coverage is only available at the time a plan is purchased and, unless otherwise noted on your policy, must be within 15 days of your initial trip deposit. As a result, if you have an existing insurance policy, you are not eligible to add CFAR coverage.

Does travel insurance cover the cost of any COVID testing as a requirement to enter or exit a country, such as the CDC’s testing requirements for air passengers entering the United States that are effective January 26, 2021?

No, travel insurance will not cover the cost of a general COVID-19 test that may be required for travel. However, Medical Expense may cover testing in the event a policyholder becomes ill during a trip and a test is ordered by a physician as part of a diagnosis. Coverage is subject to the terms and conditions of your insurance policy. Please click here to access a copy of your policy.

How do I get a letter verifying Medical Expense coverage, which certain countries are requiring for entry?

To request a letter verifying Medical Expense coverage, please contact the AIG Travel World Service Center 24/7 at 800.826.1300, or email us at [email protected]. Please include the following information in the email:

• Travel Guard policy number (if already booked)
• Name(s) of the Policy Holder(s)
• Email address you would like the letter sent to
• The destination(s) for your trip
• The travel dates of your trip
• Your phone number and mailing address

Please allow up to 5 business days from the date of your request to receive your letter. In some cases, additional time may be required for us to verify eligibility based on the country’s published requirements, which can vary by destination.

My destination requires a negative COVID test (or other documentation, such as proof of immunization/vaccination) within 72 hours of arrival. If I cannot obtain this documentation (e.g. due to lack of availability) am I covered if I must cancel or interrupt my trip?

No, travel insurance will not provide coverage for this reason. We urge customers to regularly review entry requirements to their destination to ensure compliance with the latest entry protocols.