The Daily Caller - Conservative Principles Don’t Justify Silencing Conservatives

Carl Szabo — general counsel for NetChoice, a trade association representing Facebook, Google and other Big Tech entities — argued in TheDC that conservatives don’t have free speech on social media platforms.

According to Szabo, the core conservative principles of limited government and opposition to state interference in private enterprise should preclude the Right from showing any concern over social media censorship. (RELATED: SORRY CONSERVATIVES: You Don’t Have Free Speech On Facebook Or Twitter)

 

Commercial Observer - Santa Monica Home-Sharing Ordinance Faces E-commerce Pushback

“Santa Monica was too clever by half with this ordinance. They are saying, ‘We aren’t controlling what you can say or list, but we are making it so that, if you take a nickel for anything that is booked, you’re liable, including jail time, if the host misrepresents the license,’ ” Steve DelBianco, the president and CEO of NetChoice, told CO.

“The ordinance is like holding a commercial leasing broker responsible if a restaurant tenant lied about having a business license to the point of the leasing broker spending six months in jail due to the restaurant tenant misrepresenting the tenets of their license.”

Technology & Marketing Law Blog - District Court Ruling Highlights Congress’ Hastiness To Pass ‘Worst of Both Worlds FOSTA’– Doe 1 v. Backpage

UPDATE: NetChoice says: “While the recently-enacted Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) has provided useful new tools for prosecutors, its amendment of Section 230 was never necessary to reach its goal.”

The Register - Google Lobbies Hard to Derail New US Privacy Laws

Even as Facebook was turning in favor of SESTA-FOSTA, behind the scenes NetChoice was instrumental in getting a manager’s amendment to the law written into it as it passed through the House. That amendment basically removed the Section 230 change with wording was eerily similar to text floated by NetChoice.

BNA Bloomberg - Website Liability Bill in Congress Sparks Constitutional Debate

Tech companies are concerned about the retroactive provision. The bill “includes a provision the Department of Justice has said is unconstitutional,” Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at e-commerce trade group NetChoice, said in a statement. “At a minimum, Congress should not deliberately pass unconstitutional legislation. This provision can easily be fixed through a simple amendment and clear report language.”

POLITICO - House Passes Anti-Sex Trafficking Bill in Defeat for Tech Industry

Carl Szabo, general counsel for NetChoice, said the trade group hopes “the law is not abused to undermine things like user-generated content or small businesses that have no interest in and are actually fighting sex trafficking.” The Internet Association said Tuesday it “will defend against attempts to weaken these crucial protections.”

The Hill - Anti-online sex trafficking bill gets crushed under Big Tech's lobbying

The replacement was apparently predicated on a submission to the House Judiciary Committee presented by Chris Cox, a former congressman and outside counsel for NetChoice, a bill supported by the Internet Association, SIIA, CCIA (all of whom count Google among their funders), and other powerful tech lobbying organizations. Cox had, only weeks earlier, testified against FOSTA before the House Judiciary Committee.

READ MORE

Washington Post - House committee targets online sex trafficking by amending Mann Act, puzzling advocates

Former representative Chris Cox, now a lawyer for NetChoice, which represents many Internet companies, had suggested in his testimony to the committee that the legislation merely restate the intent of the CDA rather than rewrite it and create unforeseen problems. Cox was an original author of the CDA.

READ MORE

Wired - Are Tech Companies Trying To Derail The Sex-Trafficking Bill?

Although the new letter does not mention the tech industry’s role, some advocates point out that the language in the amendment closely mirrors a suggestion made by Chris Cox, a former congressman and lobbyist who serves as outside counsel for NetChoice, an advocacy group funded in part by Google. NetChoice declined to say whether Google was one of its larger donors, but noted that it has two dozen members. “We don’t speak for any one member, not do we represent any members,” spokesperson Carl Szabo, the group’s vice president, told WIRED.

READ MORE

POLITICO - Sex trafficking survivors' groups attempt to delay House Judiciary bill markup

“If this comes out of House Judiciary and it passes, this is likely the end of this whole exercise,” Mazzio said in an interview, saying the survivor community feels “betrayed.” She said the amendment seems to be largely pulled from language suggested by NetChoice, a trade association whose members include Google and Facebook. “How did that left turn happen? Why was it done in secret?”

READ MORE