Attachment III

Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
2020 Annual Conference Resolutions

October 7 – 9, 2020

 INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that
resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and
recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the
General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, one resolution has been introduced for consideration at the Annual Conference and
referred to League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Two policy committees will meet virtually at the Annual Conference to
consider and take action on the resolution referred to them. The committees are: Governance,
Transparency & Labor Relations and Public Safety. These committees will meet virtually on
Tuesday, September 29, with the Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations Policy Committee
meeting from 9:30 – 11:30 a.m. and the Public Safety Policy Committee meeting from 1:00 – 3:00
p.m. The sponsor of the resolution has been notified of the time and location of the meeting.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet virtually at 1:00 p.m. on
Thursday, October 8, to consider the reports of the policy committees regarding the resolutions. This
committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional divisions, functional
departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the League
president.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held virtually at 11:00 a.m. on Friday,
October 9.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day
deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by
designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and
presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the
Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m.,
Thursday, October 8.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the
League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224

1

 GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for
deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s seven standing policy
committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a
changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy
decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions
should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1.

Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted
at the Annual Conference.

2.

The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.

3.

The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.

4.

The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a)

Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.

(b)

Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around
which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of
directors.

(c)

Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and
board of directors.

(d)

Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).

2

 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.

Number

Key Word Index

Reviewing Body Action
1
2
3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly

GOVERNANCE, TRANSPARENCY & LABOR RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE
1

1

2

3

2

3

Amendment to Section 230 of The Communications
Decency Act of 1996
PUBLIC SAFETY POLICY COMMMITTEE
1

1

Amendment to Section 230 of The Communications
Decency Act of 1996

3

 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.

KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES

KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN

1. Policy Committee

A

Approve

2. General Resolutions Committee

D

Disapprove

3. General Assembly

N

No Action

R

Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study

a

Amend+

* Subject matter covered in another resolution

Aa

Approve as amended+

** Existing League policy

Aaa

Approve with additional amendment(s)+

*** Local authority presently exists

Ra

Refer as amended to appropriate policy
committee for study+

Raa

Additional amendments and refer+

Da

Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove+

Na

Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No
Action+

W

Withdrawn by Sponsor

ACTION FOOTNOTES

Procedural Note:
The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the League
Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this
link: Resolution Process.

4

 1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING FOR AN AMENDMENT OF SECTION 230
OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT OF 1996 TO REQUIRE
SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES TO REMOVE MATERIALS WHICH
PROMOTE CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES
Source: City of Cerritos
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities: City of Hawaiian Gardens, City of Lakewood, City of Ontario, City of Rancho
Cucamonga, City of Roseville
Referred to: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations and Public Safety Policy
Committees
WHEREAS, local law enforcement agencies seek to protect their communities’
residents, businesses, and property owners from crime; and
WHEREAS, increasingly, criminals use social media platforms to post notices of places,
dates and times for their followers to meet to commit crimes; and
WHEREAS, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 currently
provides online platforms (including social media platforms) immunity from civil liability based
on third-party content and for the removal of content; and
WHEREAS, in the 25 years since Section 230’s enactment, online platforms no longer
function simply as forums for the posting of third-party content but rather use sophisticated
algorithms to promote content and to connect users; and
WHEREAS, the United States Department of Justice, in its June 2020 report, “Section
230 — Nurturing Innovation or Fostering Unaccountability?,” concluded the expansive
interpretation courts have given Section 230 has left online platforms immune from a wide array
of illicit activity on their services, with little transparency or accountability, noting it “makes
little sense” to immunize from civil liability an online platform that purposefully facilitates or
solicits third-party content or activity that violates federal criminal law; and
WHEREAS, current court precedent interpreting Section 230 also precludes state and
local jurisdictions from enforcing criminal laws against such online platforms that, while not
actually performing unlawful activities, facilitate them; and
WHEREAS, amendment of Section 230 is necessary to clarify that online platforms are
not immune from civil liability for promoting criminal activities; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly, assembled
at the League Annual Conference on October 9, 2020 in Long Beach, California, that the League
calls upon the U.S. Congress to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996
to condition immunity from civil liability on the following:

5

 1. Online platforms must establish and implement a reasonable program to identify and take
down content which solicits criminal activity; and
2. Online platforms must provide to law enforcement information which will assist in the
identification and apprehension of persons who use the services of the platform to solicit
and to engage in criminal activity; and
3. An online platform that willfully or negligently fails in either of these duties is not
immune from enforcement of state and local laws which impose criminal or civil liability
for such failure.

6

 Background Information to Resolution
Source: City of Cerritos
Background:
Social media platforms are now used as a primary means of communication, including by
criminals who use them to advertise locations, dates, and times where the criminal acts will take
place. Such communications, because they occur online, render the online platform immune
from any civil liability for the costs incurred by law enforcement agencies that respond under
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Immunity from civil liability extends
even to injunctive relief, thus preventing local governments from merely seeking an injunction
against the online platform to have such a post removed.
The City of Cerritos supports the rights of free speech and assembly guaranteed under the First
Amendment, but believes cities should have the ability to hold social media companies liable for
their role in promoting criminal acts. Recently, the City suffered thousands of dollars in damages
to respond to online threats that the Cerritos Mall would be looted. Anonymous posts on
Instagram.com invited followers to “work together to loot Cerritos [M]all” only several days
after the Lakewood Mall had been looted, causing thousands of dollars in damages. The posts
were made under the names “cerritosmalllooting” and “cantstopusall,” among others. The City of
Cerritos had no choice but to initiate response to protect the Mall and the public from this
credible threat.
At the same time local governments face historic shortfalls owing to the economic effects of
COVID-19, the nation’s social media platforms are seeing a record rise in profits. The broad
immunity provided by Section 230 is completely untenable. Online platforms should be held
responsible—and liable—for the direct harm they facilitate. Local governments are in no
position to bear the costs of the crimes facilitated by these companies alone.
Congress is currently reviewing antitrust legislation and by extension, Section 230’s immunity
provisions. The League urges Congress to amend Section 230 to limit the immunity provided to
online platforms when they promote criminal activity to provide local governments some
measurable form of relief.

7

 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff:

Charles Harvey, Legislative Representative
Bijan Mehryar, Legislative Representative
Caroline Cirrincione, Policy Analyst
Johnnie Piña, Policy Analyst

Committees: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations
Public Safety
Summary:
This resolution states that the League of California Cities should urge Congress to amend Section
230 of the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) to limit the immunity provided
to online platforms where their forums enable criminal activity to be promoted.
Ultimately, the policy objectives proposed under this resolution, if enacted, would incentivize
social media companies to establish and implement a reasonable program to identify and remove
content that solicits criminal activity.
Background:
The City of Cerritos is sponsoring this resolution in reaction to events whereby persons, using
social media platforms to coordinate locations, dates, and times for their planned criminal
activity, have committed acts of looting and vandalism resulting in both actual economic harm
for targeted businesses, and pecuniary loss to cities who used resources to prevent such acts from
occurring when such plans are discovered.
For example, just days after the Lakewood Mall had been looted, the City of Cerritos uncovered
online communications via social media that persons were planning to target the nearby Cerritos
Mall. Consequently, the city felt compelled to undertake measures to protect the Cerritos Mall,
costing the city thousands of dollars to guard against what officials believed to be a credible
threat.
Staff Comments:
Overview:
While there is certainly an argument to substantiate concerns around censorship, the use of social
media as a tool for organizing violence is equally disturbing.
Throughout much of the 2020 Summer, there have been many reports of looting happening
across the country during what were otherwise mostly peaceful demonstrations. Combined with
the speculation of who is really behind the looting and why, the mayhem has usurped the
message of peaceful protestors, causing a great deal of property damage in the process.
Likewise, these criminal actions have upended the livelihood of some small business owners,
many of whom were already reeling in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

8

 While social media allows people to connect in real time with others all over the world,
organized illegal activity using social media is made easier by the anonymous nature of virtual
interactions.
Nation’s Reaction to the Murder of George Floyd:
Shortly after the senseless killing of George Floyd by law enforcement on May 26, 2020, civil
unrest began as local protests in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area of Minnesota
before quickly spreading nationwide to more than 2,000 cities and towns across the United
States, and in approximately 60 countries in support of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Protests unfolded across the country throughout the entire month of June and into July, and
persisted in a handful of cities such as Portland and Seattle into the month of August.
Although the majority of protests were peaceful, some demonstrations in cities escalated into
riots, looting, and street skirmishes with police. While much of the nation’s focus has been on
addressing police misconduct, police brutality, and systemic racism, some have used
demonstrators’ peaceful protests on these topics as opportunities to loot and/or vandalize
businesses, almost exclusively under the guise of the “Black Lives Matter” movement. It has
been uncovered that these “flash robs” 1 were coordinated through the use of social media. The
spontaneity and speed of the attacks enabled by social media make it challenging for the police
to stop these criminal events as they are occurring, let alone prevent them from commencing
altogether.
As these events started occurring across the country, investigators quickly began combing
through Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram seeking to identify potentially violent extremists,
looters, and vandals and finding ways to charge them after — and in some cases before — they
sow chaos. While this technique has alarmed civil liberties advocates, who argue the strategy
could negatively impact online speech, law enforcement officials claim it aligns with
investigation strategies employed in the past.
Section 230 and other Constitutional Concerns
At its core, Section 230(c)(1) of the CDA provides immunity from liability for providers and
users of an “interactive computer service” who publish information provided by third-party
users. Essentially, this protects websites from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal, although
there are exceptions for copyright violations, sex work-related material, and violations of federal
criminal law.
Protections from Section 230 have come under more recent scrutiny on issues related to hate
speech and ideological biases in relation to the influence technology companies can hold on
political discussions.
Setting aside Section 230, there are some potential constitutional issues one could raise, should
there be an attempt to implement such a resolution into statute.
1

The “flash robs” phenomenon—where social media is used to organize groups of teens and young
adults to quickly ransack and loot various retail stores—began to occur sporadically throughout the United
States over the past ten years.

9

 In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting most forms
of speech, which would include many proposals to force tech companies to moderate content.
While “illegal” types of speech enjoy limited or no First Amendment protection, the line for
delineating between “legal” and “illegal” speech is very difficult to determine. Consequently,
one would expect online platforms to push back on whether there is a constitutionally feasible
way for them to “identify” protected speech versus unprotected speech, or whether there is a
feasible way to define “content which solicits criminal activity.” A law requiring companies to
moderate content based on the political viewpoint it expresses, for example, would likely be
struck down as unconstitutional.
Nonetheless, private companies can create rules to restrict speech if they so choose. Online
platforms sometimes argue they have constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights in their
“editorial activity,” and therefore, it violates their constitutional rights to require them to monitor
(i.e., “identify and take down”) content that may be protected under the First Amendment. They
may also argue, along the same lines, that the government may not condition the granting of a
privilege (i.e., immunity) on doing things that amount to a violation of their first amendment
rights. This is why Facebook and Twitter ban hate speech and other verifiably false information,
for example, even though such speech is permitted under the First Amendment.
With respect to privacy and the Fourth Amendment, online platforms may argue that requiring
them to “provide to law enforcement information that will assist in the identification and
apprehension of persons who use the services of the platform to solicit and to engage in criminal
activity,” turns them into government actors that search users’ accounts without a warrant based
on probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Industry Perspective
Unsurprisingly, industry stakeholders have strong opinions for what such changes could mean
for their respective business models.
For instance, a Facebook spokesperson recently noted in a Fortune article that, “By exposing
companies to potential liability for everything that billions of people around the world say, this
would penalize companies that choose to allow controversial speech and encourage platforms to
censor anything that might offend anyone.”
The article acknowledges that in recent years, both political parties have put social media
companies under increased scrutiny, but they are not unified in their stated concerns. While
Republicans accuse the companies of unfairly censoring their post, Democrats complain that
these companies fail to do enough to block misinformation, violent content, and hate speech.
The article concludes that there is no way companies like Facebook and Twitter could operate
without Section 230, and that the removal of this section would thereby “eliminate social media
as we know it.”
Recent Federal Action on Social Media
The President recently issued an Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship. In it, he
notes the following:

10

 “The growth of online platforms in recent years raises important questions about applying
the ideals of the First Amendment to modern communications technology. Today, many
Americans follow the news, stay in touch with friends and family, and share their views
on current events through social media and other online platforms. As a result, these
platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.
Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power
to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information;
and to control what people see or do not see.”
Ultimately the President implores the U.S. Attorney General to develop a proposal for federal
legislation that “would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.” The President is
not subtle in communicating his desire to ultimately see legislation heavily slanted toward the
preservation of free speech on social media, which some interpret as a maneuver to preempt
Twitter and Facebook from regulating speech they otherwise deem as hateful or demonstrably
false.
Considerations for Congress
Courts have generally construed Section 230 to grant internet service providers broad immunity
for hosting others’ content. Many have claimed that Section 230’s immunity provisions were
critical to the development of the modern internet, and some continue to defend Section 230’s
broad scope. But simultaneously, a variety of commentators and legislators have questioned
whether those immunity provisions should now be narrowed, given that the internet looks much
different today than it did in 1996 when Section 230 was first enacted.
One way for Congress to narrow Section 230’s liability shield would be to create additional
exceptions, as it did with FOSTA and SESTA2. If a lawsuit does not fall into one of the express
exceptions contained in Section 230(e) 3, courts may have to engage in a highly fact-specific
inquiry to determine whether Section 230 immunity applies: Section 230(c)(1) immunity will be
inapplicable if the provider itself has developed or helped to develop the disputed content, while
Section 230(c)(2) immunity may not apply if a service provider’s decision to restrict access to
content was not made in good faith.
Date Storage and Usage Considerations for Cities
Section 2 of the conditions the resolution applies to civil immunity requires that online platforms
provide relevant information to law enforcement to assist in the identification and apprehension
of persons who use the services of the platform to solicit and to engage in criminal activity. This
section would most likely require the development of new procedures and protocols that govern
law enforcements usage and retention of such information. Those new policies and procedures
would undoubtedly raise privacy concerns depending on how wide the latitude is for law
2

The Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA)
create an exception to Section 230 that means website publishers would be responsible if third parties
are found to be posting ads for prostitution — including consensual sex work — on their platforms.
3
Section 230(e) says that Section 230 will not apply to: (1) federal criminal laws; (2) intellectual property
laws; (3) any state law that is “consistent with” Section 230; (4) the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act of 1986; and (5) civil actions or state prosecutions where the underlying conduct violates federal law
prohibiting sex trafficking.

11

 enforcement to request such information. In those circumstances cities could end up themselves
incurring new liability for the governance of data that could either violate certain privacy rules or
increase their data governance costs.
Fiscal Impact:
Unlike the costly resources needed to support or oppose a ballot measure, a federal resolution
from the League of California Cities that simply urges Congress to undertake certain action
should have a negligible fiscal impact, if any monetary impact at all.
Regarding cities, if social media had no immunity for its failure to police content that solicits
criminal activity, then an individual city could theoretically save thousands if not millions of
dollars, depending on its size and other subjective circumstances. Collectively, cities across the
country could potentially save at least hundreds of millions between redress for actual economic
harm suffered and/or the cost of preventative measures taken to stop criminal activity from
occurring in the first place.
Conversely, if social media platforms were to shut down, due to an inability to comply with a
policy requirement to regulate speech on the internet, it is unclear on how cities might be
impacted from a fiscal standpoint.
Existing League Policy:
Public Safety:
Law Enforcement
The League supports the promotion of public safety through:
• Stiffer penalties for violent offenders, and
• Protecting state Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) and federal Community
Oriented Police Services (COPS) funding and advocating for additional funding for local
agencies to recoup the costs of crime and increase community safety.
Violence
The League supports the reduction of violence through strategies that address gang violence,
domestic violence, and youth access to tools of violence, including but not limited to firearms,
knives, etc.
The League supports the use of local, state, and federal collaborative prevention and intervention
methods to reduce youth and gang violence.
Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations:
Private Sector Liability
The League will work closely with private sector representatives to evaluate the potential for
League support of civil justice reform measures designed to improve the business climate in
California. These measures should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis through the League
police process.

12

 Questions to Consider:
Many cities obviously believe that creating civil liability for social media platforms—due to their
role in providing the communication mediums for those who organize looting attacks— is key to
deterring this organized criminal activity.
If such a change was actually passed by Congress, it would force social media to essentially
police every conversation on stakeholders’ respective platforms, putting immense pressure on the
industry to make subjective determinations about what conversations are appropriate and what
are unacceptable.
At the end of the day, there are a few questions to consider in assessing this proposed resolution:
1) What would this resolution’s impact be on free speech and government censorship?
2) What are the expectations for cities when they receive information from a social media
platform about a potentially credible threat in their respective communities? Does a city
become liable for having information from a social media platform and the threat
occurs?
3) What would the costs be to develop and maintain new data governance policies,
including data infrastructure, to store this information?
4) What is the role of the League in engaging in issues relating to someone’s privacy?
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received:
City of Hawaiian Gardens
City of Lakewood
City of Ontario
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Roseville

13

 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 1
Amendment to Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act of 1996

14

 15

 16

 17

 18

 19