U.S. House Energy & Commerce leadership recently announced draft legislation that would sunset Section 230 protections. Repealing Section 230 without an agreement on what a post-230 world should look like could threaten users' free expression rights and exacerbate the problems some in Congress aim to solve. Any conversation about reforming Section 230 must prioritize users, including those who rely on its protections to exchange information online.
Section 230 has often been portrayed as a gift to the tech industry, intended to fuel the economy's nascent tech sector. However, it was written with users in mind. The provision's authors stated at its adoption that its purpose is to “protect computer Good Samaritans” making online spaces safer and to ensure “government censors must not be allowed to spoil [the internet’s] promise.” The law clarifies that platforms aren’t responsible for their users’ misconduct while enabling them to remove offensive or inappropriate speech, thus creating safer online environments.
At its core, Section 230 is about the exchange of ideas, protecting both significant and everyday speech, including discussions on faith, politics, and restaurant reviews. Amid state laws banning certain books in schools and restricting medical treatments for trans and gender-nonconforming people, Section 230 protects the exchange of critical information and controversial content online. It allows space for criticizing administration policies across various platforms without regard for party affiliation.
Section 230’s protections are broad but not all-encompassing. They do not extend to federal criminal law violations or intellectual property infringement. Additionally, it does not bar product liability claims when they do not seek to hold platforms liable as publishers of user content. Courts increasingly recognize that platforms can be held liable for unsafe product designs unrelated to publication activities or user speech.
Emerging from the pandemic, public focus is on online safety and privacy. Proposing to repeal Section 230 amid broader discussions about digital safety overlooks its key role in facilitating content moderation. While much discussion centers on platform immunity for user speech, equally important is Section 230’s protection of platforms' ability to create safer online spaces. Abuse and misinformation have severe consequences for democracy; eliminating this statute could undermine efforts to make digital spaces safer.
Congress should collaborate with constituents and civil society to improve online experiences without repealing Section 230 hastily, considering its implications for free expression.
