17 Facts About Section 230

Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content.

At its core, Section 230 provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:.

Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers in the early 1990s that resulted in different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or, alternatively, as distributors of content created by its users.

Section 230 protections are not limitless, requiring providers to remove material illegal on a federal level, such as in copyright infringement cases.

Section 230 has two primary parts both listed under §230 as the "Good Samaritan" portion of the law.

Related searches

Section 230 provides immunity from civil liabilities for information service providers that remove or restrict content from their services they deem "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected", as long as they act "in good faith" in this action.

Section 230 has often been called "The 26 words that made the Internet".

The passage and subsequent legal history supporting the constitutionality of Section 230 have been considered essential to the growth of the Internet through the early part of the 21st century.

However, at the same time, this has led to Section 230 being used as a shield for some website owners as courts have ruled Section 230 provides complete immunity for ISPs with regard to the torts committed by their users over their systems.

Shortly after the passage of FOSTA-SESTA acts, some in Congress recognized that additional changes could be made to Section 230 to require service providers to deal with these bad actors, beyond what Section 230 already provided to them.

However, journalist Martin Baron has argued that most of Section 230 is essential for social media companies to exist at all.

Hawley alleged that section 230 immunity was a "sweetheart deal between big tech and big government".

Section 230 is all about letting private companies make their own decisions to leave up some content and take other content down.

Kosseff stated that political neutrality was not the intent of Section 230 according to the framers, but rather making sure providers had the ability to make content-removal judgement without fear of liability.

Concerned politicians and citizens raised calls at large tech companies for the need for hate speech to be removed from the Internet; however, hate speech is generally protected speech under the First Amendment, and Section 230 removes the liability for these tech companies to moderate such content as long as it is not illegal.

Wyden, now a Senator, stated that he intended for Section 230 to be both "a sword and a shield" for Internet companies, the "sword" allowing them to remove content they deem inappropriate for their service, and the shield to help keep offensive content from their sites without liability.

Representative Beto O'Rourke stated his intent for his 2020 presidential campaign to introduce sweeping changes to Section 230 to make Internet companies liable for not being proactive in taking down hate speech.