Thirty years after its passage, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act continues to shape the internet and virtually every company that operates on it. Critics argue the provision shields technology platforms from accountability, while others contend it protects free expression and innovation. The debate has implications for online safety, the advances of artificial intelligence, and methods for content moderation.
Patrick Hedger, director of policy at NetChoice, a trade association that defends free enterprise and expression in technology believes repealing Section 230 would not “discipline” Big Tech, but will instead undermine the next generation of innovators.
Hedger is involved in litigation and advocacy surrounding internet governance. His organization represents companies in the digital economy. According to Hedger, Section 230 survives for a reason because. “it ultimately puts the power in the hands of the private sector… to police what happens on their property.”
Unlike other provisions of the Communications Decency Act, which involved government speech restrictions, Section 230 empowered private actors. “It's [a] private enterprise… saying this is what we want our site to be,” he says. He calls it “a real major empowerment of property rights.”
Without those protections, Hedger believes the internet would look quite different. “Without Section 230, effectively the internet just becomes a digital newspaper,” Hedger says, where user-generated content would largely disappear. Litigation risk, he argues, would suffocate startups before they scale. For anyone forced to litigate, the cost “reaches into the seven figures pretty quickly,” he says. Established companies can survive, but “it is the potential challenger to the next Google… that suffers,” Hedger says.
Section 230 does not eliminate accountability altogether. “You are responsible for what you put online, not necessarily where you put it,” Hedger says. If he were to defame another person in a social media post, Hedger says, “you don’t have a suit against Facebook, but you do have a suit against me.” Criminal conduct can still be prosecuted. The statute primarily limits civil liability that would otherwise attach to platforms for a user’s postings.
The concern for those who want Section 230 modified is that billions of posts flow online daily. “Some things are going to slip through the net,” Hedger says, “but that doesn’t mean you take down the net entirely.” He warns that repealing Section 230 would either transform the internet into “a real cesspool” or force platforms to route every post through legal departments before publication.
Hedger says companies already remove vast amounts of problematic content before users ever see it. “Meta believes they’re able to take down 99.99% of terrorist-related propaganda before anybody ever sees it,” he says. His view is that repeal of Section 230 would undermine those filtering efforts rather than improve them.
The fast advance of artificial intelligence adds more complexity. Courts are grappling with questions of fair use and data training. Hedger urges restraint. “There’s a delicate balance that needs to be struck,” he says. AI systems require large data sets to function effectively, though creators deserve protection. He believes innovation and intellectual property need not be a zero-sum contest. “There’s an advantage here… for creators,” he says.
Broader tort reform, in his view, would address many concerns that are driving Section 230 disputes. The United States is used to litigation. “We have a pretty sue-happy culture,” Hedger says. He favors a loser-pays model common in other countries, which would deter frivolous suits while preserving meritorious claims. Section 230, he says, functions as “one of the most effective pieces of tort reform that’s ever been passed.”
Hedger acknowledges that protecting children online is an important goal. “Nobody’s denying that there are bad actors online,” he says. However, vague mandates can lead to censorship of lawful speech. “You really risk weaponization of the government,” he says, especially when officials gain authority to define harmful content subjectively.
Former Representative Chris Cox (R-CA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) crafted the statute. “We know exactly what they intended,” Hedger says. Their goal was to “let a thousand flowers bloom” as a way to foster experimentation and competition.
Section 230 is foundational to American soft power, according to Hedger. Because U.S. companies built the global internet, the values of free enterprise and free expression are embedded in the platform. “If you got rid of section 230, only the big tech companies would be able to survive,” he says.
