Stop the Censorship Act

Bill Number

H.R. 908

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Science, Technology, Communications

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-02-04: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Last Updated

2026-07-01T12:58:50Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "Stop the Censorship Act" (H.R. 908) aims to limit the legal protections that online platforms currently have under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. This section, part of what is known as the Communications Decency Act, shields internet companies from being sued over user-generated content. The bill seeks to end what its sponsors view as excessive "censorship" by narrowing these protections, holding platforms more accountable for moderating content that is not illegal.

Key Provisions

• Amendment to Section 230(c) Heading: Changes the title from "Protections for and Screening of Offensive Material" to "Protections of Unlawful or Objectionable Material." This signals a shift in focus from broad "offensive" content to specifically unlawful or objectionable items.
• Narrowing Immunity for Content Removal:
• Under current law, platforms are protected from liability when they remove material they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable," even if it is constitutionally protected (like free speech under the First Amendment).
• The bill limits this protection to only "unlawful material" (e.g., content that breaks the law, such as illegal threats or child exploitation material).
• New Restriction on User Control Options:
• Adds a provision stating that platforms lose immunity for "any action taken to provide users with the option to restrict access to any other material," regardless of whether that material is constitutionally protected.
• This targets features like user settings to block or filter non-illegal content, such as political opinions or controversial posts.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• From Broad to Narrow Protections: Previously, Section 230 gave platforms wide latitude to moderate content they found objectionable without fear of lawsuits, encouraging self-regulation. The bill restricts this to illegal content only, exposing platforms to potential lawsuits for moderating protected speech.
• Elimination of Safe Harbor for User Tools: The addition of subparagraph (C) removes legal shields for common features like content filters or parental controls if they go beyond blocking unlawful material, potentially making such tools riskier to offer.
• No Changes to Basic Immunity: The bill does not alter the core protection in Section 230(c)(1), which still immunizes platforms from liability for third-party content they host, as long as they don't actively create or edit it.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or courts may see increased enforcement or litigation related to online moderation, as platforms could face more lawsuits. This might strain resources for monitoring compliance with the revised Section 230.
• On Citizens: Users could experience less moderation of harmful but legal content (e.g., misinformation or hate speech), leading to more unfiltered online environments. However, individuals harmed by moderated content might gain easier paths to sue platforms, potentially empowering free speech advocates but complicating user experiences with fewer safe-guarding tools.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though U.S. tech companies operating globally might face challenges aligning with foreign content laws while complying with this stricter U.S. standard, possibly affecting data flows or platform availability abroad.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Online Platforms and Tech Companies: Major players like social media sites (e.g., X, formerly Twitter; Facebook) and hosting services lose broad immunity, increasing legal risks and costs for content moderation decisions.
• Content Creators and Users: Individuals posting or viewing online content may see platforms pull back on voluntary restrictions, leading to more exposure to objectionable material, but also fewer instances of their legal posts being removed.
• Advocacy Groups: Free speech organizations (e.g., ACLU) might support the bill for reducing platform overreach, while anti-censorship and conservative groups (reflected in the bill's sponsors) could benefit; conversely, groups focused on combating hate or misinformation may oppose it.
• Legal System: Courts and lawyers will handle more cases challenging platform actions, potentially overwhelming dockets with disputes over what qualifies as "unlawful" versus protected speech.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: By tying immunity to "unlawful material," the bill invites more court battles to define terms like "unlawful" or "objectionable," which could lead to inconsistent rulings. Platforms might err on the side of hosting more content to avoid liability, shifting moderation burdens to users or lawmakers.
• Constitutional Implications: This challenges the balance between First Amendment free speech rights and platform autonomy. It could be seen as protecting user expression by limiting private "censorship," but critics might argue it indirectly pressures platforms to host harmful content, raising questions about government influence on private companies without direct regulation.
• Political Implications: Introduced by Republican representatives, the bill reflects partisan debates over "Big Tech" bias, aiming to curb perceived suppression of conservative views. If passed, it could spark broader reforms to internet liability laws, influencing election-year discussions on online speech, though it faces hurdles in a divided Congress and potential veto or legal challenges.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9]

Cosponsors (10)

Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4], Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5], Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Recent Actions

• 2025-02-04: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• 2025-02-04: Introduced in House
• 2025-02-04: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Stop the Censorship Act — issued 2025-02-04 — PDF (2 pages)