At an FCC hearing today, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) asked the FCC if it could take action to shut down social media sites in order to hamper and block terrorist communications. The entire episode seems at least partly sparked by erroneous reports that the Paris terrorists used PS4 games to communicate and coordinate their attacks (those reports have been retracted).

Barton’s remarks can be seen in the video below, beginning roughly at 1:14:00.

We’ve also transcribed the relevant section below:

Isis and the terrorist networks can’t beat us militarily, but they are really trying to use the Internet and all of the social media to beat us psychologically… Isn’t there something we can do under existing law to shut those Internet sites down? I know they pop up like weeds, but once they do pop up, shut them down, and then turn those Internet addresses over to the appropriate law enforcement agencies to try and track them down? I would think that even in an open society, when there is a clear threat, they’ve declared war against us, our way of life, they’ve threatened to attack this very city our capital is in, that we could do something about the Internet and social media side of the equation.” [emphasis added]

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responded by noting that the FCC doesn’t currently possess the authority to monitor communication or take unilateral action of the sort contemplated by Rep. Barton. He emphasized, however, that Congress could choose to redefine what constituted a “lawful intercept” and that he would be open to working with Congress on this issue. He also argued that the FCC needs better tools to understand what’s going on inside the network, and an increased ability to monitor infrastructure. The 17 separate fiber cuts in the San Francisco Bay Area were cited as an example of an area where ISPs and the FCC have a mutual interest in detecting and repairing physical network damage.

Ignorance breeds incoherence

There are multiple problems with Barton’s proposal. First and foremost, it’s ideologically incoherent. Nine months ago, Barton called the FCC’s imminent net neutrality decision “Net nonsense” and wrote “I believe in an open internet that is driven by markets and competition, not by government regulation created by bureaucrats at the FCC in Washington.”

The radical idea that Internet traffic should be treated equally, in other words, is an unacceptable level of government overreach. The idea that the government should have the right to order Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, or YouTube to shut down, on the other hand, is apparently justified. Barton’s proposal, if followed, would give the FCC far more power than it currently wields. Barton, it must be noted, is not alone in his conviction that the government must ‘do something.’ Rep. Michael Doyle (D-Pa.), supported Barton’s idea, stating “I wholeheartedly agree with what you’ve said, too, and hopefully we can work on that.”

This brings us to the second problem: The people proposing the solutions have not the faintest idea how the Internet actually works. It’s a problem that stretches across the entire political spectrum, and it has a direct and concrete impact on the types of legislation that are enacted. The Internet may have collectively patted itself on the back for defeating SOPA and CISPA several years ago, but those laws (and many like them) reach the floor in part because so many legislators do not understand the implications of the laws they are considering.

Whether you agree with Edward Snowden’s actions or not, his leaks revealed that the intelligence programs created in the wake of 9/11 had mutated far beyond what many members of Congress envisioned. Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the architects of the Patriot Act, testified in the wake of the leaks that “I do not believe the broadly drafted FISA order is consistent with the requirements of the Patriot Act. Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American.” He later fought to curtail or eliminate the NSA’s telephone surveillance programs and introduced the USA Freedom Act in the House in 2013.

Handing the FCC, or any government agency, the power to unilaterally shut down websites on suspicion of terrorist activities is a far greater threat to freedom than net neutrality has ever been. I agree with Barton that the terrorist attacks on Paris are a reminder that Western nations, including the United States, do not exist in a magical bubble and the urge to “do something” in the wake of tragedy is entirely understandable. It’s also often the wrong answer. In the absence of compelling evidence that such powers could have allowed the French government to prevent these attacks, there is no reason to conclude that granting such unprecedented power to the FCC or any other US agency would provide a significant benefit.