• Home
  • Independent Voter News
  • Quizzes
  • Election Dissection
  • Sections
  • Events
  • Directory
  • About Us
  • Glossary
  • Opinion
  • Campaign Finance
  • Redistricting
  • Civic Ed
  • Voting
  • Fact Check
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Big Picture>
  3. first amendment>

What is Section 230?

Abbey Stemler
August 02, 2021
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies remotely during an October 2020 Senate hearing on changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies remotely during an October 2020 Senate hearing on changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images

Stemler is an associate professor of business law and ethics at Indiana University and a faculty associate at Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society.


Almost any article you read about Section 230 reminds you that it contains the most important 26 words in tech and that it is the law that made the modern internet. This is all true, but Section 230 is also the most significant obstacle to stopping misinformation online.

Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law passed while the internet was still embryonic and downright terrifying to some lawmakers for what it could unleash, particularly with regard to pornography.

Section 230 states that internet platforms — dubbed "interactive computer services" in the statute — cannot be treated as publishers or speakers of content provided by their users. This means that just about anything a user posts on a platform's website will not create legal liability for the platform, even if the post is defamatory, dangerous, abhorrent or otherwise unlawful. This includes encouraging terrorism, promoting dangerous medical misinformation and engaging in revenge porn.

Platforms, including today's social media giants Facebook, Twitter and Google, therefore have complete control over what information Americans see.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

How Section 230 came to be

The Communications Decency Act was the brainchild 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 was struck down on First Amendment grounds shortly 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 a 1995 case that 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 a Hobson'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 platforms broad rather than narrow 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 threatens public health and democracy. Republicans, by contrast, argue that platforms censor user content to Republicans' political disadvantage. Former President Donald Trump even attempted to pressure Congress into repealing Section 230 completely by threatening to veto the 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 over 20 reforms – from piecemeal changes to complete repeal. However, free speech and innovation advocates are worried that any of the proposed changes could be harmful.

Facebook has suggested changes, and Google similarly advocates for 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.

The Conversation

From Your Site Articles
  • Despite claims of bias, conservatives thrive on social media ›
  • Does Trump have a legitimate First Amendment case? - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • Section 230: What It Is, and Why Politicians Want to Change It - WSJ ›
  • Section 230: everything you need to know about the law protecting ... ›
  • 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening ... ›
  • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act | Electronic ... ›
first amendment

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

Texas leads the way

Lawrence Goldstone

The Constitution was intended to expand freedoms, not restrict them

Beau Breslin

Risks and rewards in a polarized nation: Businesses face tough choices after Roe v. Wade ruling

Richard Davies

The economic blame game, part 1: Blame your opponents

David L. Nevins

How a college freshman led the effort to honor titans of democracy reform

Jeremy Garson

Our poisonous age of absolutism

Jay Paterno
latest News

Podcast: The crucial role of political centrists

Our Staff
21m

Busy day ahead with primaries or runoffs in seven states

Richard Perrins
Reya Kumar
Kristin Shiuey
18h

The state of voting: June 27, 2022

Our Staff
18h

Video: Faces of democracy

Our Staff
23h

How the anti-abortion movement shaped campaign finance law and paved the way for Trump

Amanda Becker, The 19th
24 June

Podcast: Journalist and political junkie Ken Rudin

Our Staff
24 June
Videos

Video: Memorial Day 2022

Our Staff

Video: Helping loved ones divided by politics

Our Staff

Video: What happened in Virginia?

Our Staff

Video: Infrastructure past, present, and future

Our Staff

Video: Beyond the headlines SCOTUS 2021 - 2022

Our Staff

Video: Should we even have a debt limit

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: Did economists move the Democrats to the right?

Our Staff
02 May

Podcast: The future of depolarization

Our Staff
11 February

Podcast: Sore losers are bad for democracy

Our Staff
20 January

Deconstructed Podcast from IVN

Our Staff
08 November 2021
Recommended
Podcast: The crucial role of political centrists

Podcast: The crucial role of political centrists

Leadership
U.S. and Texas flags fly over the Texas Capitol

Texas leads the way

State
Founding Father John Dickinson

The Constitution was intended to expand freedoms, not restrict them

Judicial
Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Darren Bailey

Busy day ahead with primaries or runoffs in seven states

State of voting - election law changes

The state of voting: June 27, 2022

Voting
Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Lauren Hobart

Risks and rewards in a polarized nation: Businesses face tough choices after Roe v. Wade ruling

Corporate Responsibility