Lindsey Graham Takes Aim at Section 230 With Yet Another Bill Proposal

Lindsey Graham Takes Aim at Section 230 With Yet Another Bill Proposal

WASHINGTON — Senator Lindsey Graham (R, South Carolina), Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, quietly scheduled yesterday an item on the agenda for Thursday’s committee meeting, aiming to discuss a new bill, S. 4632, which he called the Online Content Policy Modernization Act.

Graham's new bill, which explicitly seeks to undermine the First Amendment based on a new notion of "objectionally reasonable belief," includes a change of wording that attempts to single out "material that the provider or user has an objectively reasonable belief is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or promoting self-harm, promoting terrorism, or unlawful, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

The Online Content Policy Modernization Act is yet another attempt by Graham to reform or revoke Section 230 protections, the so called “First Amendment of the Internet.” A previous Graham sponsored bill, the EARN IT Act, also aimed at Section 230, is making its way through the Senate, as are a few other proposals that Graham has praised.

Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden have expressed their wish to repeal Section 230, with the current president issuing a confusing Executive Order earlier in May that ordered federal agencies to find ways to challenge its protections.

According to the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the power to alter or repeal Section 230.

A New Copyright Bureaucracy

Graham’s new Online Content Policy Modernization Act, which he previously called Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act, claims as its stated purpose to "establish an alternative dispute resolution program for copyright small claims, to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to modify the scope of protection from civil liability for ‘good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material, and for other purposes.”

Graham’s bill proposes the creation of a new federal bureaucracy under the Copyrights Office, the Copyright Claims Board. Graham’s new board will supposedly “serve as an alternative forum in which parties may voluntarily seek to resolve certain copyright claims regarding any category of copyrighted work, as provided in this chapter.”

This new form of government intervention would essentially tie third-party-upload content sites, from Facebook to Twitter to YouTube and adult tube sites, in endless litigations arbitrated by this new, politically appointed board.

Altering the Language (and Spirit) of Section 230

The last part of the bill directly changes language to Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 22 U.S.C. 230), altering the current version — No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider — with the following:

(A) IN GENERAL.—No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

‘(B) APPLICABILITY.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any decision or agreement made or action taken by a provider or user of an interactive computer service to restrict access to or availability of material provided by another information content provider.

(ii) CIVIL LIABILITY.—Any applicable immunity for a decision or agreement made or action taken by a provider or user of an interactive computer service described in clause (i) shall be provided solely by paragraph (2).’

That paragraph (2) currently reads:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

Graham’s new bill would amend paragraph (2) as follows:

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user has an objectively reasonable belief is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or promoting self-harm, promoting terrorism, or unlawful, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph

A further change of language is directly aimed at recent attempts by Twitter and Facebook to fact-check information disseminated via their platform. Graham wants to make them liable as “being responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information.”

Graham's 'Objectively Reasonable Belief'

For the adult industry, the most concerning change is Graham’s new definition of “material that the provider or user has an objectively reasonable belief is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or promoting self-harm, promoting terrorism, or unlawful, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

Graham’s bill essentially seeks to end First Amendment protections based on something being declared “unlawful” and, more specifically, creates a new, incredibly vague legal category of “objectively reasonable belief,” and directly applies it to the words “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy.”

The enormous danger in the fact that Graham is now seeking to write legislation enshrining belief as “objective” — and that what he considers “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy” does not need to be spelled out.

Text of S4632 Proposal

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

FSC Drops Florida AV Lawsuit in Wake of SCOTUS Decision

A U.S. district court judge granted on Tuesday a motion by Free Speech Coalition to dismiss the trade association’s lawsuit over Florida’s age verification law, a case that had been on hold pending the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the constitutionality of state AV laws.

Ukrainian President Responds to Porn Legalization Petition

President Volodymyr Zelensky responded Tuesday to an OnlyFans model’s petition to decriminalize pornography in Ukraine, stating that he would wait for the legislative process to play out “in accordance with established procedure.”

Only Tax Deductions Joins Pineapple Support as Sponsor

Adult industry accounting firm Only Tax Deductions has joined the ranks of over 70 adult businesses and organizations committing funds and resources to Pineapple Support.

Adult Empire Launches 'Conversations' Podcast Series

Adult Empire has launched a new official podcast series hosted by Nicole Chappelle and Charlie.

Sex Work CEO Launches 'Teams Plan' for AI Assistant

Sex Work CEO has introduced the new Teams Plan for its AI-powered, NSFW text generator, GPTease.

2025 XBIZ Amsterdam Website Launches With Call for Speakers

XBIZ is pleased to announce that the website for its annual European conference, XBIZ Amsterdam, is now live.

NC Governor Vetoes Bill Targeting Adult Industry, Override Possible

North Carolina Governor Josh Stein today vetoed a bill imposing new regulations that adult industry observers have warned could push adult websites and platforms to ban most adult creators and content.

25,000 Sign Petition to Legalize Pornography in Ukraine

An OnlyFans model’s petition to decriminalize pornography in Ukraine has amassed the 25,000 signatures required for official consideration by President Volodymyr Zelensky.

WannaCollab Joins Pineapple Support as Supporter-Level Sponsor

WannaCollab has joined the ranks of over 70 adult businesses and organizations committing funds and resources to Pineapple Support.

FSC Unpacks SCOTUS Age Verification Ruling in Webinar

The Free Speech Coalition conducted a public webinar Tuesday to help adult industry stakeholders understand the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FSC v. Paxton, and its potential implications.

Show More