Once the hearing gets underway, we’re likely to hear a great deal about Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, and why it should be changed. Here’s what you need to know about this pivotal US law.
Originally passed in 1996, Section 230 grants tech platforms and websites legal immunity for many of the decisions they make about user-generated content. It holds that platforms — such as Facebook and Twitter — can’t be sued for material created by their users and posted to their services. And, it says, platforms can’t be sued just for suppressing or removing content they deem “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”
The purpose of the law, according to its authors, Sen. Ron Wyden and former Rep. Chris Cox, was to allow a then-nascent industry to grow up free from the fetters of federal regulation, and to give companies the freedom to moderate their platforms as they saw fit.
You may hear some lawmakers claim that Section 230 requires platforms to be politically neutral. That is false and misleading. There is nothing in the text of Section 230 that calls for neutrality; in fact, the text of the law, and subsequent court decisions, have protected the decision-making freedom of private companies, up to and including decisions about political speech.
Proposed updates to Section 230 could change that. But Congress will need to be careful to avoid drafting a law that compels tech companies to carry specific kinds of speech, as it could raise questions about the companies’ First Amendment rights.