Section 230 Challenge: Read It For Yourself
You’ve probably heard plenty about Section 230, but while politicians and commentators howl about it, have you actually ever read it?
Some background, from The Verge:
WHAT IS SECTION 230?
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which was passed in 1996, says an “interactive computer service” can’t be treated as the publisher or speaker of third-party content. 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.Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) crafted Section 230 so website owners could moderate sites without worrying about legal liability. The law is particularly vital for social media networks, but it covers many sites and services, including news outlets with comment sections — like The Verge. The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls it “the most important law protecting internet speech.”
It’s increasingly controversial and frequently misinterpreted, however. Critics argue that its broad protections let powerful companies ignore real harm to users. On the other hand, some lawmakers incorrectly claim that it only protects “neutral platforms” — a term that’s irrelevant to the law.
WHAT’S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SECTION 230 AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
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. A law that required companies to moderate content based on the political viewpoint it expresses, for example, would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.Private companies can also create rules to restrict speech if they so choose. This is why Facebook and Twitter ban hate speech, for example, even though it is legally permitted in the United States. These moderation rules are protected by the First Amendment as well.
This issue is distinct from discussions over whether platforms should be liable for what their users post, though it often gets lumped in with the 230 discussion.
Here is the full, complete text of Section 230, from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. Read it for yourself:
47 U.S. Code § 230 – Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
(a)Findings
The Congress finds the following:(1)The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2)These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4)The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b)PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1)to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2)to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3)to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4)to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5)to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d)Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.(e)Effect on other laws
(1)No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.(2)No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.(3)State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.(4)No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.(5)No effect on sex trafficking law
Nothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A)any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C)any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.(f)Definitions
As used in this section:
(1)Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2)Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4)Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A)filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B)pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C)transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.
It starts out with a lie.
Report
You joke, but I was just thinking yesterday about how much the Internet has improved access to quality educational and reference materials. Yes, there’s social media, but we have free access to course materials from top colleges. Wikipedia is far more comprehensive than paper encyclopedias. Slightly outdated textbooks are dirt-cheap on Amazon. A large and growing subset of peer-reviewed research is available for free without a trip to the nearest university library. You can find statistical data on basically everything.
You have to meet it halfway, but the Internet is a fantastic educational resource if you choose to use it that way.Report
The true test of mankind will be whether the users of JSTOR can outmatch the flat Earthers and people eating Tide pods. May the odds be ever in your favor.Report
Having the internet at my fingertips has allowed me to work from home. If I had to have a mathematical or development reference library at hand every time I needed to look up a formula or algorithm…Report
The same kind of thing was said in the early days of TV, and turned out to be the sheerest optimism.Report
“Scientists could give lectures in front of a blackboard and teach Chemistry or Physics to you in the comfort of your own home!”
(That said, it is delightful to have Wikipedia.)Report
(Give me a second … Ok, back.)
Wikipedia? It thinks an MIT physicist just discovered phlogiston.Report
It’s about time. It has been theorized for centuries, after all.Report
Said by ignorant people. Who didn’t understand how scarce the bandwidth resource was, how much it cost to be a content source, and hadn’t paid any attention to the evolution of radio.
25+ years ago I was the unpopular guy running around a large telecom/cable company doing demos and explaining why the internet was different. You could lay out the technology paths and show bandwidth would become cheap; the cost to be a content source would be cheap; it was inherently variable bit rate; and it was media neutral.
BB’s remarks remain accurate. For people who want it — me, for example — there’s a subset of the internet that gives me unlimited access to technical literature, access to lectures by experts on pretty much any subject, music, high-resolution scans of art work, vast amounts of source code, etc. There’s room for all kinds of communities.Report
The web is much more effective at conveying misinformation than the real stuff. Witness. to be topical, 99% of all web traffic about Section 230.Report
I admit that I missed the whole “Companies will set up systems and let tens of millions of people put up false statements anonymously, for nothing.”Report
people in copyright debates: “the law has to change to fit the times, the Internet is a lot different now than it used to be, it’s important that we recognize how far we are from the situation these rules were written to fit”
people in pollution and environmental-protection debates: “it’s important to protect the natural world, and if that makes things harder or more expensive then that’s just a price we pay to not wreck everything, and if some companies can’t operate profitably with new rules then that’s unfortunate but true”
people in Section 230 debates: “the law is the law, it doesn’t matter what’s changed about the world in the twenty-five years since it was written, and if you changed the law then a whole bunch of companies would have to change how they operate and it would be a real problem for them!”Report
The point isn’t the law can’t be changed. The point is the changes to the law won’t make the changes cons think they will.
Removing or lessening 230 protections will only make social media companies more restrictive, not less restrictive.Report
counterpoint: permissive social media is demonstrably not a good thing, and maybe these companies should be more restrictive.Report
Aside from completely shutting down the ability of people to post comments or content, I’m not sure what critics of 230 expect?Report
To be able to sue any site that disagrees with them into oblivion. (I’m not saying that belief is rational.)Report
bad people will no longer be allowed to communicate* bad ideas, which will fix everything.
i am somewhat pleased to see that the feints the media was making at “these scary encryptions!” toward signal and telegraph, etc, don’t appear to have legs so far. maybe it’s because a lot of investigative journalists use signal to avoid the baleful eye of gubmints and corps?
* in a way they can see, but obviously not for real.Report
I think it’s more “Bad people will no longer be allowed to censor good people like the real president.”Report
Unfortunately the concept has wider appeal than that: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/18/biden-section-230/
I am hopeful that reflexive partisanship helps spur a realignment on this front, but I’m unwilling to bet on it. But who knows? Weirder things have happened.Report
If both sets of partisans hate it, it’s probably good law.Report
One of the things to keep in mind is that 230 is an appendage to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, most of which has been gutted by the courts as violating the 1st Amendment. It wasn’t passed for high minded reasons, but was more to keep the commercial internet from being strangled in the cradle by litigation and also to avoid ISPs being collateral damage in the federal government’s war on online porn. It’s kind of a miracle we have it at all. I strongly doubt many (maybe any) who voted for it would defend it on the grounds that supporters do today. All the more reason to believe that if it’s repealed it will be gone forever.Report
The “commercial internet” was actually doing okay before the CDA was passed. Compuserve even set the precedent that if you didn’t exercise editorial control and merely removed posts that violated actual laws, you were good. What people wanted was the authority to pick and choose what posts they removed while still maintaining a publicly-viewable system, and Cox and Wyden supported this because they wanted system admins to have the authority to delete porn and pro-gay speech without being sued over it. (Remember that it was the Communications Decency Act.)Report