The Communications Decency Act of 1996 turned 30 this month. And for the past three decades, Section 230 of the act has allowed critics, organizers and activists to use the internet to make their voices heard. Online communities large and small, from knitting message boards to neighborhood chat groups to underground music sites, are all possible as a result of Section 230.
Section 230 is a simple law: In effect, it says the person who creates a post is the one responsible for it. Without it, goodbye retweets and reskeets, Reddit mods, Wikipedia editors and the people curating feeds on Bluesky. The ability to rapidly reshare information online is only possible because of the law.
And yet, today the law that then-Republican California Rep. Chris Cox and I co-wrote is increasingly under threat by an alliance of far-right culture warriors, tech billionaires and Hollywood stars who blame the law for every wrong that occurs online.
Preserving Section 230 is one of the most consequential ways to prevent Trump and the cabal of MAGA billionaires from controlling everything Americans see and read.
Members of Congress have introduced a number of bills to change Section 230, including legislation from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., to repeal Section 230 in two years. Other proposals include repealing Section 230 for posts the Health and Human Services secretary decides are medical misinformation. This was introduced in 2021 in response to the proliferation of COVID-19 misinformation, but today it would essentially give HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy the power to silence critics of his anti-vaccine agenda. Still more shortsighted proposals include banning companies from blocking hate speech and removing Section 230 for large companies unless they block any content that could be deemed “harmful to minors.”
As President Donald Trump and his administration wage war against free speech, it is vital that Americans have a free and open internet where they can criticize the government, share personal health information and simply live their lives without government censorship and repression. For those of us who value the ability for regular people to speak and be heard online, preserving Section 230 is one of the most consequential ways to prevent Trump and the cabal of MAGA billionaires from controlling everything Americans see and read.
For example, Americans have used WhatsApp, Signal, Bluesky and TikTok to document violent, lawless activities by Immigration Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection across the country. While corporate news organizations like CBS News have buried stories about Trump administration immigration abuses and are increasingly pushing disingenuous “both sides” reporting, regular Americans have helped to change public opinion with their first-hand videos of government-sanctioned violence that have spread across the internet.
That was possible because of Section 230. Take it away and you would see ICE agents bring bad faith lawsuits against those platforms, perhaps claiming that Meta helped incite anti-ICE protests or defamed them by carrying posts alleging excessive force. To understand what would be possible, just look at how police departments and Big Oil have used civil suits to try and silence their biggest critics.
Or look at the Jeffrey Epstein case. It took dogged journalism by the Miami Herald and activism from Epstein’s victims to keep the story alive. But without Section 230, anyone who merely shared a story or allegation about Epstein and his associates on their social media could be sued by Epstein’s deep-pocketed pals, along with the site that hosted those posts.
Given the positives, why has Section 230 become a target? Trump’s Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has repeatedly attacked tech companies that he claims are biased against conservatives and threatened their Section 230 protections. Right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation that support repealing Section 230 have openly called for limiting children from accessing “trans content” and said, “Big Tech turns kids trans.” Other well-meaning advocates have legitimate concerns about wrongdoing by Big Tech, particularly when it comes to platform designs that are harmful to children, but gutting Section 230 is the wrong solution to those problems.
Critics of Section 230 often misunderstand it. The statute only protects companies when a lawsuit tries to treat a company as the speaker of the post they find offensive or harmful.
Without Section 230, anyone who merely shared a story or allegation about Epstein and his associates on their social media could be sued by Epstein’s deep-pocketed pals.
However, courts can and have held companies liable for their own speech and business practices. For example, Amazon has tried and failed to use Section 230 to avoid lawsuits about dangerous batteries it helped sell. Meta also tried and failed to use Section 230 to dodge responsibility for helping place discriminatory ads. And Big Tech is going to trial, after a California state court found that Section 230 did not protect certain social media design features.
Section 230 isn’t perfect. I’ve always been open to reasonable reforms that don’t pressure services into censorship or invasive monitoring. However, even under a normal president, changing liability rules for online speech would be fraught with interference from Big Tech, MAGA activists and billionaires who want to crowd out competition and censor critics.
Americans should demand our government finally pass a strong baseline privacy law, regulate design elements that foster compulsive use of these platforms, and stop government agencies like ICE from buying our personal data to supercharge their deportation campaigns. These reforms would have massive benefits for users, without leading to censorship of people without power. But opening up Section 230, especially right now, while Trump is president, would give him the pen to rewrite online speech rules. Given his administration’s attacks on free speech, I think that would be disastrous.
Happy 30th birthday Section 230, here’s to many more.
