S 69 Re-checks Congress.gov for new actions and updates the bill's status, and fills in any sponsors, committees, or related bills that are missing. It does not re-pull sponsors/cosponsors/committees/related — those rarely change — and it skips all work if nothing has changed upstream, so it's cheap to click.
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to address governmental interference in content moderation decisions by providers of interactive computer services, and for other purposes.
Summary
This bill amends Section 230 of the Communications Act, which provides liability protections for online platforms. It removes those protections from platforms that restrict access to political speech or viewpoints in response to communications from government entities or entities acting at a government's request, unless the communication serves a legitimate law enforcement or national security purpose. The bill shifts the burden in lawsuits to platforms to prove they are not publishers of user-generated content. It defines "legitimate law enforcement purpose" as communications to investigate criminal offenses within an agency's authority, and "national security purpose" as communications related to intelligence, cryptology, military command and control, weapons systems, or military and intelligence missions.
AI-generated plain-language summary of the bill text — neutral, and may be imperfect. See the full text below for the exact wording.
Sponsor (1)
- Sen. Schmitt, Eric [R-MO] (R-MO)
Actions (2)
- Jan 9, 2025 Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. · senate
- Jan 9, 2025 Introduced in Senate
Similar bills (6)
Bills with similar text or summary — includes reintroductions across Congresses. Ranked by semantic similarity of the bill text (computed locally); a neutral discovery aid, not a claim the bills are duplicates.
Full text
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 9, 2025
Mr. Schmitt introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to address governmental interference in content moderation decisions by providers of interactive computer services, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy’s Erosion Act” or the “COLLUDE Act”.
SEC. 2. CONTENT MODERATION, CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT, AND DISTRIBUTION.
Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) is amended—
(1) in subsection (c)—
(A) in paragraph (1)—
(i) by striking “No provider” and inserting the following:
“(A) In general.—Subject to subparagraph (B), no provider”; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
“(B) Affirmative defense.—In a criminal or civil action against a provider or user of an interactive computer service that treats the provider or user as the publisher or speaker of any information, the provider or user shall bear the burden of proving that the provider or user is not an information content provider with respect to that information for purposes of subparagraph (A).”;
(B) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking “paragraph
(1)” and inserting “subparagraph (A)”; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
“(3) Loss of protection in cases of governmental censorship.—
“(A) In general.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), this subsection shall not apply to a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to or availability of material—
“(i) in a manner that reasonably appears to express, promote, limit the visibility of, or suppress legitimate political speech, including a discernible viewpoint; and
“(ii) as a result of a communication that—
“(I) is sent to the provider by— “(aa) a governmental entity; or “(bb) a non-governmental entity that is acting at the request or behest of a governmental entity; and
“(II) the applicable entity under subclause (I) sends only to the provider and not to any other entity.
“(B) Exception.—A communication that is for a legitimate law enforcement purpose or a national security purpose shall not be considered to be a communication that is described in subparagraph
(A)(ii).”; and
(2) in subsection (f), by adding at the end the following:
“(5) Legitimate law enforcement purpose.—The term ‘legitimate law enforcement purpose’ means, with respect to a communication, that the purpose of the communication is so that a law enforcement agency can, within the lawful authority of that agency, investigate a criminal offense.
“(6) National security purpose.—The term ‘national security purpose’ means, with respect to a communication, that the purpose of the communication relates to—
“(A) intelligence activities;
“(B) cryptologic activities that relate to the national security of the United States;
“(C) command and control of the Armed Forces;
“(D) equipment that is an integral part of a weapon or a weapons system; or
“(E) the direct fulfillment of a military or intelligence mission.”. <all>
Comments