Section 230 allows social platforms to exist and thrive — is it time for a change?
Both Democrats and Republicans want rid of Section 230, but for completely different reasons
How Section 230 came to be
The Communications Decency Act was thebrainchild of Sen. James Exon, Democrat of Nebraska, who wanted to remove and prevent “filth” on the internet. Because of its overreaching nature, much of the law wasstruck down on First Amendment groundsshortly after the act’s passage. Ironically, what remains is the provision that allowed filth and other truly damaging content to metastasize on the internet.
Section 230’s inclusion in the CDA was a last-ditch effort by then Rep. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Rep. Chris Cox, Republican of California, to save the nascent internet and its economic potential. They were deeply concerned by a1995 casethat found Prodigy, an online bulletin board operator, liable for a defamatory post by one of its users because Prodigy lightly moderated user content. Wyden and Cox wanted to preempt the court’s decision with Section 230. Without it, platforms would face aHobson’s choice: If they did anything to moderate user content, they would be held liable for that content, and if they did nothing, who knew what unchecked horrors would be released.
What lies ahead for social media reform
When Section 230 was enacted, less than 8% of Americans had access to the internet, and those who did went online for an average of just 30 minutes a month. The law’s anachronistic nature and brevity left it wide open for interpretation. Case by case, courts have used its words to give platformsbroadrather thannarrow immunity.
As a result,Section 230 is disliked on both sides of the aisle. Democrats argue that Section 230 allows platforms to get away with too much, particularly with regard to misinformation that threatenspublic healthanddemocracy. Republicans, by contrast, argue that platformscensor user content to Republicans’ political disadvantage. Former President Trump evenattempted to pressure Congress into repealing Section 230 completelybythreatening to vetothe unrelated annual defense spending bill.
As criticisms of Section 230 and technology platforms mount, it is possible Congress could reform Section 230 in the near future. Already, Democrats and Republicans have proposed over20 reforms – from piecemeal changes to complete repeal. However,free speechandinnovationadvocates are worried that any of the proposed changes could be harmful.
Facebook hassuggested changes, andGoogle similarly advocatesfor some Section 230 reform. It remains to be seen how much influence the tech giants will be able to exert on the reform process. It also remains to be seen what if any reform can emerge from a sharply divided Congress.
Article byAbbey Stemler, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics; Faculty Associate Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University,Indiana University
This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
