The "Take It Down" Act

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/03/trump-calls-congress-pass-overbroad-take-it-down-act-so-he-can-use-it-censor

by panarky • 1 year ago

152 95 1 year ago

eff.org

userbinator5• 1 year ago

Whichever the ruling party is, it seems to never be one that actually supports free speech.

seandoe• 1 year ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Maybe because it _is_ how things work, not seemingly.

Spivak2• 1 year ago

Depends on what you consider free speech to be I suppose. The left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach. Neither is more correct than the other and we have plenty of examples of both in our laws. Rules of the road and FCC spectrum allocations being pretty easy examples of individual freedom being traded for collective freedom.

The last administration was far from perfect but I think they upheld their view of free speech quite well in terms of policy. This administration is on a revenge tour right now and is taking a "free as in I can say whatever I want" power trip so I don't think we'll know how they do until they cool off.

uhgfdrt• 1 year ago

left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach.

This is incredibly incorrect.

right prefers a "free as in anarchy"

The right wing of USA politics claims this but clearly act in opposition to this claim.

Also, “anarchy” is the most extreme is “leftist” politics.

hayst4ck2• 1 year ago

I think it's more fair to say that liberals believe that the 1A protects speaking truth to power, while the conservative idea is more the 1A protects saying things people don't like.

America's founding fathers were absolutely raging liberals, and within the countries founding document -- the declaration of independence, the liberal idea of "social contract" was encoded. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)

Liberals are suspicious of speech that violates the social contract, such as speech that is a prelude to violating other people's, like transgender people's, pursuit of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness. If you use your right to speech as a prelude to stripping other people of their rights, it is right for there to be consequences. The social contract in fact demands at least some degree of consequences, otherwise the social contract is useless because it's purpose is fundamentally to protect rights.

In a democracy, should people be allowed to vote for a dictator who promises to dissolve the government? That's a really rough philosophical question. I consent to a democracy, but I don't consent to a monarchy. It's the paradox of democracy and paradox of the idea of a government that exists primarily to protect rights.

userbinator5• 1 year ago

The last administration was far from perfect but I think they upheld their view of free speech quite well in terms of policy.

The last administration: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/05/sunsetting-section-230...

Dracophoenix2• 1 year ago

The left side of the political spectrum has for a very long time advocated for an interpretation of 1A that is "free as in liberty" while the right prefers a "free as in anarchy" approach.

You may have it backwards, depending on one's definitions of "left" and "right". It was Berkley's Free Speech Movement, largely composed of leftist students and sympathizers, that kickstarted the "free as in anarchy" approach to speech in its modern incarnation. And anarchy is not even an exaggeration as many of its members occupied buildings, engaged in shut-ins and shut downs of privately owned businesses, as well as mounted police cars when one of their members were arrested. In many ways, this is the style of freedom the internet offered at its earliest and most fringe.

diego_sandoval• 1 year ago

The left usually tries to conceal their free speech violations under the excuses of "hate speech", and in specific cases in Europe, right to be forgotten.

Trump has no shame just calls it "take it down".

some_furry2• 1 year ago

The left doesn't have a meaningful presence in American politics.

Just say "Democrats" if that's what you mean.

userbinator5• 1 year ago

Also "think of the children" and "privacy".

explodes• 1 year ago

The "Take Action" link leads to "Bad Gateway"

turbocon• 1 year ago

It just worked for me so maybe it's a been fixed.

righthand• 1 year ago

404 not found for me.

Banditoz• 1 year ago

The article says it passed the Senate.. does it have a chance to pass the House?

nativeit• 1 year ago

Sure, it's a bipartisan bill. If Democrats wanted to stop it in the Senate, they could have. That said, the House is typically a more partisan and less predictable place. Shenanigans are always possible..but the US Congress has been largely irresponsible with privacy thus far, why expect anything different?

kibwen• 1 year ago

Taking bets on how soon until DOGE takes down this page: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

throwaway69123• 1 year ago

what odds you offering you will get pretty good liquidity on people who think thats 100:1

fasbiner• 1 year ago

I'll take that action for up to high five figures using fiat or crypto and a third party site, reply with the amount you're interested in wagering.

Or are you like the current executive in that you also don't mean the words you say and will always hide behind the excuse that everyone knows you're such a liar that it's unfair for anyone to take what you say literally?

LAC-Tech• 1 year ago

America is one of the last bastions of free speech left. Stuff like this, the tik tok ban, and the "anti-semitism" laws, are very disturbing developments.

vkou• 1 year ago

It's weird that the government of America has fully gotten into the business of tone and morality policing, and banning the press for calling the Gulf of Mexico what it is.

That doesn't seem compatible with being a bastion of free anything.

ranger_danger2• 1 year ago

freedom TO vs freedom FROM.

For example the left wants freedom from unfair business practices, while the right wants the freedom to do whatever they want in their businesses.

mullingitover• 1 year ago

The US has had pretty iron-fisted anti-free speech laws for most of its history under the guise of anti-obscenity rules. They'll probably come back, too, given the current regime.

bluSCALE42• 1 year ago

As an adult that self censors in America, that ship has long sailed.

tehwebguy• 1 year ago

As an adult that self censors

I think that’s just being an adult

thrance3• 1 year ago

So called "free speech absolutists" the minute they get into power...

An an European often arguing with Americans on whichever definition of free speech is best, that's what always bugged me. It doesn't matter what your law says when people who don't respect the law gain power. They won't protect their opponents free speech.

Punishing hate speech does not lead to political censorship, authoritarianism does.

idle_zealot• 1 year ago

Punishing hate speech does not lead to political censorship

Well, sure it does, if a political party runs on hate!

zamadatix2• 1 year ago

Donald Trump has never been a free speech absolutist. He does like to stir people up about "free speech" though, particularly when it's something he wants to say, but that doesn't turn him into an absolutist.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledge...

ceejayoz• 1 year ago

Musk was the one to claim to be an absolutist.

thrance3• 1 year ago

His supporters and allies certainly like to claim they are, and that he is their champion.

blooalien• 1 year ago

I think perhaps you meant "free speech absolutists", as "absolution" is the act of forgiving someone for their sins or wrongdoing.

thrance3• 1 year ago

Dang it, you're right. Thanks!

rqtwteye• 1 year ago

It seems they really are taking inspiration from 1933 "Gleichschaltung". It looks like they want to control everything. Has any incoming administration ever made so many sweeping changes in such short time?

gjsman-1000• 1 year ago

Nonsense, our founding fathers didn’t even view pornography as free speech; with the first domestically produced pornography dating to 1840. They also had no problem with slander laws, imported wholesale from Britain.

Revenge porn would have blown their Protestant minds to the point of not writing the first amendment.

Terr_3• 1 year ago

Hold up: Let's remember that when first made the US Constitution contained limits that only applied to what the new Federal Government could do. (The Articles of Confederation being a failed beta-test.)

Before-vs-After the 14th amendment, a lot of comparisons automatically become apples-to-oranges. The people who crafted and ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791 simply were not operating in a world where those rules had nearly as much interaction/overlap with the 13 different State-level constitutions.

waltercool• 1 year ago

The issue and reason about this law is, what happens when some teenager post naked photos of some ex girlgriend at internet.

While I don't care much about AI deepfakes, revenge porn can be very harmful to women, at the point of considering suicide.

This needs to be normalized at some point. While I don't like what Germany usually does, privacy about private photos/videos need to be respected

wewewedxfgdf• 1 year ago

Very interesting times to live in.

IAmGraydon• 1 year ago

Like all draconian measures, they use the guise of a good cause to pass a law that they fully intend to abuse. This law was "intended" to put a stop to deepfakes and revenge porn, but we have the president openly admitting that he intends to use it for himself. From Trump last night:

I look forward to signing that bill into law. And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.

Unless Trump is concerned about NCII involving his likeness (he's not), he's openly admitting what this law is actually for - to silence opposition.

SpicyLemonZest2• 1 year ago

Or he didn't read the bill. The text is quite specific about what kinds of content it applies to, I don't think there's any way it could be used to silence opposition.

barbazoo• 1 year ago

It’s another case where he didn’t know what’s going on, heard three words he knew and started babbling. And then people try to interpret it like tealeaves.

SpicyLemonZest2• 1 year ago

A lot of people in the comments here who I would perhaps advise to click into the text of the bill. I respect the EFF's privacy concerns, but I don't agree that victims of revenge porn should have to wait for a service provider to carefully verify their claims before getting a takedown processed, although I do hope the House offers amendments to clarify that encrypted messaging apps don't need to institute surveillance to comply.

92834092322• 1 year ago

When you combine this with the upcoming death of Section 230, what you have is Elon, Trump and their network of liars being able to spread bullshit nonstop but then they will be able to target anyone who tries to hold them accountable.

92834092322• 1 year ago

I made a comment on this already but I do want to add that everyone should call their representatives. It does work and house reps are much more vulnerable than senators so you have more leverage with them.

jauntywundrkind• 1 year ago

The recent example of someone putting political commentary on display at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shows a bit of how this plays out. (The fact that it was un-authorizedly pirated onto the displays at a federal building is a separate topic; I'm focusing here on the content).

BlueSky took down all the videos of it playing around the office. Because it was AI generated. It wasn't clear whether it was (a video of) a real video or not.

But if that video had been done by an artist? If it had been a comic? That would have been acceptable content to keep on the social network, most likely.

There's a lot of cases where I do think computer generated imagery is personally harmful and dangerous and should have some checks. And I definitely fear it's use politically, if we see videos that credulously seem to be a politician doing something they wouldn't do, performing speech they didn't do. Yet, in this example, it feels like there was little risk that the video would be taken seriously. It felt like clear political satire. But this law proposes that we outlaw political satire, purely because computer generation tools helped make the satire. That seems... not good.

This guy already claiming he's going to use it to take down videos of him feels like it will radically chill commentary & expression of thought that people have a right to make.

Animats• 1 year ago

Here's the current Senate bill.[1] (passed) Current House bill.[2] (introduced) Last year's Senate bill [3] (passed).

This bill has been kicking around for a while, with bipartisan support. This passed the Senate last December, and the new bill seems to be a duplicate of the old.

The take-down procedure mirrors the DMCA, but there is no corresponding put-back procedure. That's the real problem. With the DMCA, you can fight a take-down with a counter-notice. Then the copyright claimant has to go to court. There's nothing like that in this bill.

A solution for social site operators: if Trump tries to abuse this: use a classifier to find images of all major administration officials and just blank them out.

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146

[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/633

[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/456...

sebazzz• 1 year ago

I curious. Nearly everything has been done through decretes until now. Why choose the difficult path by actually letting this go through the Senate and House?

pas• 1 year ago

because it has unfortunately bipartisan support

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43275858

93po• 1 year ago

It's disappointing that the EFF is getting into partisan politics instead of staying out of it. Trump sucks and I'm not defending him, but it's really tiresome when people quote him and infer meaning that he super obviously did not mean. His quote:

And I’m going to use that bill for myself too if you don’t mind, because nobody gets treated worse than I do online, nobody.

to which the EFF writes:

Trump when he says he would use the Take It Down Act simply because he's "treated badly,"

It is such a massive stretch to interpret his words this way. Trump is clearly talking about fake/doctored/AI footage of himself. Trump is not going to try to use this bill to make people stop saying mean things about him on twitter.

Can we please hold people accountable for the real, problematic, hateful things they do, instead of inventing stuff that isn't real? It really damages the credibility of a group when they do this.

This is the "fine people on both sides" all over again - a quote where Trump literally said in the NEXT SENTENCE: "And I don't mean nazis and white supremacists", and everyone clipped out that part and hyperbolized to "trump literally said nazis are fine people" when it's the opposite of what he said

The "Take It Down" Act

Related Stories