Section 230 Protection

What Is Section 230?

Section 230 is a provision of federal law that protects internet web hosts and users from legal liability for online information provided by third parties. In addition, the law protects web hosts from liability for voluntarily and in good faith editing or restricting access to objectionable material, even if the material is constitutionally protected.

Section 230 was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), which amended the Communications Act of 1934, U.S. Congress. The provision was intended to promote the development of the internet and interactive computer services to expand the information and educational resources available to the public.

In recent years, the spread of misinformation and disinformation through internet services and denials of access to some individuals and materials have raised questions about the scope of Section 230 protections.

Courts have interpreted Section 230 as creating broad immunity for both the provider and user of an “interactive computer service” by prohibiting their treatment as the “publisher or speaker” of information provided by another person.

Section 230 “preempts” (i.e., displaces or overrides) any laws that would hold such providers or users liable for third-party content. Providers and users are protected against criminal sanctions, civil judgments, and injunctions.

However, providers and users of interactive internet services are responsible for the content they create and provide online. Section 230 has “exceptions” (i.e., limits)—it does not eliminate liability for material prohibited or protected by laws on:

• Obscenity
• The sexual exploitation of children
• Intellectual property
• Communications privacy
• Prostitution
• Sex trafficking laws

In addition, interactive internet services must notify customers of parental control protections.

Understanding Section 230

Section 230 applies to an “internet computer service,” an online intermediary content platform or service provider to which the statute grants extensive legal immunity. The term “internet computer service” is defined broadly in the statute and is interpreted expansively by courts.

It means any information service, system, or provider of software or tools to allow, disallow, analyze, transmit, or organize content or perform other functions—or that provides or enables access to a computer service by users.

In addition to giant online services such as Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Yelp, Section 230 protects the full range of diverse companies that provide internet access and hosting. These companies can establish and apply their policies on what material they will permit or prohibit on their services.

On the other hand, the law treats “information content providers” as legally responsible for the information that they create and post online. The statute defines “information content providers” as persons who post information that they have created or developed on or through internet computer services.

Bipartisan Criticism, Different Issues

Both Republicans and Democrats have criticized the breadth of Section 230 protections.  However, they disagree on how to change the law. Republicans focus on censorship and denials of access to political—and mainly conservative—actors and views. Democrats’ concerns tend to relate to content promoting violence or facilitating criminal activities.

In the 117th Congress, pending bills range from a wholesale repeal of Section 230 to an amendment to remove immunity for using algorithms or other methods for sorting and presenting information unless the results’ display is obvious, understandable, transparent, and relates directly to the query.

Supreme Court Consideration

On October 3, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the petition for Gonzalez v. Google, an appeal from a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The justices will weigh cases that could test legal protections for social media companies concerning posts on their platforms. The first case involves Google’s alleged responsibility for terrorist propaganda on its subsidiary, YouTube.

Section 230, which protects websites and online platforms from being held responsible in civil lawsuits for third-party posts, is at issue in a second case accusing Twitter (now X Corp), Facebook (now Meta), and Google LLC (part of Alphabet Inc.) of violating the Anti-Terrorism Act by allowing the Islamic State to use their sites.

The Bottom Line

Section 230 is a provision of federal law that protects website hosts, including platforms like Google and Facebook, and their users from legal liability for online information provided by third parties.

Both Republicans and Democrats have criticized the breadth of Section 230 protections. Currently, the Supreme Court is considering cases that allege that some major platforms allowed for terrorist propaganda on their sites.