Lecture Notes: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996

Introduction

• Section 230: Key to the development of the internet
• Known as the "26 words that made the internet"
• Ongoing debates over its implications

Publisher vs. Platform

• Publisher: Responsible for content (e.g., Time Magazine, The New York Times)
• Platform: Neutral, not responsible for what is posted (e.g., bulletin boards)
• Case Example: Smith versus California (1959)
  • Bookstore not held liable for every book it sells
  • Protects freedom of expression

Historical Context

• Compuserve

  • Early online service
  • Not liable for user-posted content as it did not moderate

• Prodigy

  • Similar to Compuserve but tried to moderate content
  • Held liable as a publisher for user-posted libelous content

Legal Implications

• Post-Prodigy Decision
  • Companies advised to stop moderating content to avoid liability

Creation of Section 230

• Chris Cox (Republican) and Ron Wyden (Democrat)

  • Aimed to encourage moderation without liability
  • Addressed the Prodigy decision's negative impact

• Purpose and Content

  • Allows service providers to moderate content in good faith
  • Provides immunity from being treated as publishers

• The 26 Words:

  • "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider."

Legislative Outcome

• Passed with near-unanimous support in 1996
• Signed into law by President Clinton
• Most of the Communications Decency Act declared unconstitutional except Section 230

Impact on the Internet

• Encourages platforms to moderate content without fear of liability
• Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram operate under this provision
• Remains a controversial and crucial law influencing online content and moderation

Next Steps

• Future lectures will explore further implications and developments related to Section 230