Teh Fight for Digital rights in 2025: How the “TAKE IT DOWN” Act Threatens Online Freedom
The proliferation of non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including increasingly complex “deepfakes,” is a deeply troubling issue demanding serious legislative attention. While 48 states already have laws addressing the distribution of NCII, alongside existing statutes covering defamation, harassment, and extortion, the need for federal action has been a long-standing concern.Though, the recently passed “TAKE IT DOWN” Act, signed into law in May 2025, represents a deeply flawed approach that prioritizes rapid content removal over fundamental rights like free expression, user privacy, and due process. At the Electronic Frontier foundation (EFF), we, alongside a broad coalition of digital rights organizations, warned against this outcome - and now, we’re preparing too defend against its chilling effects.
understanding the Problem: NCII and the Need for Effective Solutions
The harm caused by the non-consensual sharing of intimate images is undeniable. Victims experience profound emotional distress, reputational damage, and potential economic hardship.the emergence of deepfakes – digitally altered images and videos – further exacerbates the problem, making it easier to create and disseminate fabricated NCII, often with malicious intent.
Genuine solutions require strengthening existing legal frameworks and providing resources for victims. Effective enforcement of current laws,coupled with increased public awareness and support for victims,would address the core issue without sacrificing the principles of a free and open internet.
Why “TAKE IT DOWN” falls Short: A Risky Precedent
The “TAKE IT DOWN” Act, championed by Representative Maria Salazar (R-FL), unfortunately takes a drastically different tack. Instead of bolstering existing laws, it establishes a sweeping, and ultimately dangerous, notice-and-takedown system. Our analysis, shared with the Senate in a detailed letter co-signed by the Center for Democracy & technology (CDT), Authors Guild, Demand Progress Action, Fight for the Future, Freedom of the Press Foundation, New America’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, Restore The Fourth, SIECUS: Sex Ed for Social Change, TechFreedom, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation (available here), reveals several critical flaws:
* Overbroad Definition of Harmful Content: The Act’s definition of content subject to removal extends far beyond the established legal definition of NCII. It perhaps encompasses any images involving intimate or sexual content, opening the door to censorship of lawful expression.
* Lack of Safeguards Against Abuse: The law provides no meaningful protection against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. This creates a notable risk that legitimate content – including satire, journalism, political speech, and artistic expression – will be wrongly censored.
* Unrealistic Deadlines: The Act mandates that online platforms remove flagged content within a mere 48 hours, or face considerable legal penalties. This impossibly short timeframe prevents adequate investigation and verification of claims, forcing platforms into a position of reactive censorship. smaller platforms, lacking the resources of tech giants, are particularly vulnerable.
* No Recourse for Platforms: Providers are offered no legal protection when they reasonably believe a takedown request is malicious or targets lawful speech. this creates a ”censorship ratchet,” discouraging platforms from defending their users’ rights.
* Threat to Encryption: The Act poses a direct threat to end-to-end encrypted messaging services. Platforms offering this crucial privacy feature may be served with takedown notices they are technically unable to comply with, potentially leading them to abandon encryption altogether - effectively turning private conversations into surveilled spaces.
The Looming Consequences: Automated Censorship and a Chilled Internet
The “TAKE IT DOWN” Act is highly likely to incentivize the widespread adoption of automated content filters. While intended to expedite removal, these filters are notoriously prone to false positives, flagging legal content – from commentary and news reporting to educational materials – as harmful.
This chilling effect will stifle online discourse and limit access to details. The Act’s provisions create a climate of fear, where platforms prioritize avoiding legal risk over protecting free expression.
EFF’s Response: Fighting for a Free and Open Internet
Despite our best efforts – including mobilizing thousands of EFF members to contact their representatives and proposing common-sense amendments during the committee process – Congress passed the bill without addressing these critical concerns.
Now, with the main takedown provisions set to take effect in 2
