Section 230: Why Both Parties Want It Changed

Who should be liable if an individual is radicalized by what they encounter on the internet? If a user of X, TikTok, Truth Social, or a WordPress-hosted blog encounters extreme ideas on the platform and is inspired to violently attack a person or group of people, who is responsible? In criminal and civil law, it is typical for multiple individuals to be held responsible for a crime. For example, if a drunk driver is arrested for vehicular manslaughter, the courts may also target the bartender who overserved him and the owner of the bar who failed to enforce strong policies against serving patrons too much liquor. But when it comes to the internet, there are legal protections for companies that allow dangerous content on their platforms. That violent individual can be arrested, as well as the person who knowingly posted content online that was designed to inspire violence. But the platform where the content was posted? They cannot be held responsible, even if they knew about the content and failed to remove it. On the one hand, this makes sense, because it allows individuals more outlets for free speech without tech companies interfering in what they share. But on the other hand, this rule allows violent and discriminatory content to thrive online. All of this is because of Section 230. In the last several years, Republicans and Democrats alike have proposed changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which is part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. However, each side has very different reasons for wanting to see changes made to Section 230. To understand the current debate on this controversial federal policy, you have to step back and understand the law itself and how it has impacted the internet as we know it. Section 230 was part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which itself was an update to the Communications Act of 1934. As an amendment, the CDA was added because of concerns about minors accessing pornography and other sexual or indecent materials on the internet. The goal of Section 230 was to provide limited federal immunity to both providers and users of what the law called “interactive computer services.” That includes anyone who uses or engages with interactive online sites where content is created, shared, or displayed. Section 230 gave some immunity to platforms, websites, and ISPs for the content on their sites. In short, these providers are not held liable for the content their users post. At the same time, providers were given permission to make a good-faith effort to restrict access to objectionable materials online. They can remove, delete, or hide content that they feel violates their Terms of Service (ToS) or federal law. In addition to immunity, other key aspects of Section 230 include: Section 230 is interesting because of the complexity of responses to it over nearly 30 decades. Instead of being supported by one party and opposed by another, it has been celebrated by Republicans and Democrats and it has been criticized by both parties. In 2021, a Senate bill was introduced to repeal Section 230, led by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. That same year, Democrats introduced their own bill to repeal Section 230. The opposition to this federal rule is based on very different concerns, but both parties have communicated their intent to eliminate this established rule. Democrats may support Section 230 for the following reasons: However, Democrats also criticize the following elements of the rule: Republicans who support Section 230 argue that: Republication objections to Section 230 are based on the following: It’s worth noting that views on Section 230 don’t always fall neatly along party lines . Some key areas of debate include: These perspectives continue to evolve as the digital landscape changes and new challenges emerge. As more challenges to Section 230 arise, you will likely see different proposals from Democrats and Republicans. Democratic-led proposals may include: Republican-led proposals may include: Whether Section 230 is left alone or changed by Democrats, Republicans, or a bipartisan effort, individuals must take steps to protect themselves from hate speech and harassment. Anyone can become the target of cyberbullying , especially young people. Use What Is My IP Address’s collection of tools and resources to protect your identity online.