DONALD Trump has threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act unless Congress repeals Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. In general, Section 230 reform proponents want more accountability for social media platforms that they say have relied on the law as a get-out-of-jail-free card for too long. A number of tech industry observers say it's the most important law protecting free expression online.Â, The provision essentially protects companies that host user-created content from lawsuits over posts on their services. 230; commonly known as the ‘Communications Decency Act of 1996’) was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims; Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is a landmark U.S. law that shields social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook from liability for content their users post. PACT Act Would Deny Section 230 Immunity in Certain Instances and Impose Greater Transparency, Process, and Enforcement Mandates The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight  the Future and other groups have argued it'll do more harm than good to change liability protections to address the many concerns people have with social media companies. Bill unveiled to reduce Section 230 protections for social media companies The new legislation, introduced Friday, could lead to more lawsuits against Facebook, Twitter and … Section 230 of a key law pertaining to digital content shields social media companies from being held liable for what their users post. What is Section 230? Altering or removing 230 would likely have unknown and far-reaching consequences. The actions of Facebook and Twitter are protected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act. In prepared remarks, Zuckerberg said during the hearing that online platforms should "be required to demonstrate that they have systems in place for identifying unlawful content and removing it," but that they shouldn't be held liable if a piece of content evades their detection. Here's what you need to know about the controversial law, its flaws and why the prospect of killing it off in a fell swoop worries experts. What's Section 230? Removing liability protections "would lead to more censorship as social media companies seek to minimize their own legal risk," EFF said in a blog post discussing the Senate's SAFE Tech Act, introduced earlier this year by Democratic Sens. Home > Social Media > PACT Act Would Deny Section 230 Immunity in Certain Instances and Impose Greater Transparency, Process, and Enforcement Mandates. Section 230, as it’s commonly known, provides “interactive computer services”—that is, anything from web hosts to websites to social media companies—with broad … But under Section 230, platforms can choose to moderate some of their content without being liable for all of it. Dan Patterson is a reporter for CBS News. UFOs regularly spotted in restricted U.S. airspace, Facial recognition use on the rise despite possibility of errors, Netanyahu says Israel will do "whatever it takes to restore order", New mask guidance based on "evolution of the science," Fauci says, Ernst, Gillibrand hail bipartisan deal to address military sexual assault, CBS News poll: Republicans weigh in on Liz Cheney, Tiger that was seen roaming Houston neighborhood found, Damon Weaver, kid reporter who spoke with Obama, has died, Nursing school student graduates amid health setbacks, YouTube CEO on the debate over Section 230, What's behind the push for a fourth stimulus check, IRS sending refunds to those who overpaid tax on unemployment benefits, Electric vehicles could soon cost less than gas-powered vehicles, IRS backlog of tax returns is growing ahead of filing deadline, California Privacy/Information We Collect. Tech companies say Section 230 protections, which shield them from liability for their users' posts and also let them moderate harmful content without facing repercussions, allowed online platforms to flourish in the early days of the internet.Â. Arguments like 'You knew there was a problem,' or 'You should have known there was a problem' don't work in lawsuits, because 230 simply does not address a defendant's knowledge of illegal content. The regulation states, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.". Now that legislation is under attack as lawmakers look to hold social media firms accountable.Â, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill generally agree that changes need to be made to Section 230, a provision in the Communications Decency Act that gives legal protections to social media companies.Â, Calls for reform have taken on new urgency as social media sites battle a flood of troubling content, including disinformation about the coronavirus vaccines, the outcome of the US presidential election and the deadly attack on the US Capitol. "Without Section 230, we'd have no Wikipedia," said Ernesto Falcon, senior legislative counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, referring to the volunteer-maintained online encyclopedia. "But identifying a way forward is challenging given the chorus of people arguing -- sometimes for contradictory reasons -- that the law is doing more harm than good. "The existing law could not scale to meet the needs of the internet in 1996 and certainly wouldn't scale today," Greene said. Protesters set up effigies of Big Tech CEOs as Congress held hearings March 25 about the spread of disinformation and misinformation on their platforms.Â, A decades-old law shields companies such as Facebook and Twitter from lawsuits over content their users post on their platforms. The rancor around those decisions has prompted some politicians to call for the provision to be repealed or altered.Â. Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and its advocates have called it "the most important law protecting internet speech." Probably changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which we’ve written about extensively over the years. “The biggest social networks are selectively censoring information,” McCarthy wrote in a tweet , linking to his press conference on the matter. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act is a landmark U.S. law that shields social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook from liability for … There are exceptions for federal crimes or intellectual property claims. But … "We're all aware of Big Tech's ever-increasing censorship of conservative voices and their commitment to serve the radical progressive agenda," said Bob Latta, the ranking Republican of the House's subcommittee on technology. Instead of scrapping Section 230 entirely, Greene thinks Congress could devise a compromise that updates the law while also protecting speech online. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act helped create the modern internet. Both sides have set their sights on a small but critical piece of federal law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Copyright © 2021 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved. Section 230 protections also allow social media platforms to moderate their content by removing posts that violate the services’ own standards, so long as they are acting in … Stay in the know. § 230. Section 230 allowed online communities to experiment with content moderation, Falcon said. It's then much less expensive for an intermediary to delete the speech, rather than investigate whether the complaint has any merit.". That law protects social media companies from … Many experts say the law has enabled the internet to develop into a medium that allows ideas and political discourse to flow freely. Here's what you need to know about the government's potential role in regulating social media: Section 230 is a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. There's at least one bipartisan bill in the Senate. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides Twitter, Facebook and lessor Internet platforms with expansive legal immunity for the statements and other material users post. "Instead of helping Facebook by gutting Section 230, lawmakers should take actual steps to address the harms of Big Tech, like passing strong Federal data privacy legislation, enforcing antitrust laws, and targeting harmful business practices like microtargeting and nontransparent algorithmic manipulation. Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law (and itself part of the Telecommunications Act of the same year) that regulated online pornography. December 16, 2020 / 10:59 AM President Donald Trump and some Republicans in Congress have pushed to repeal the law, while Big Tech CEOs have signaled support for modifying it — although no one can agree on how. "Zuckerberg's support for changes to Section 230 is about maintaining Facebook's dominance and monopoly control, nothing more," Greer said. Critics believe it unfairly shields large social media firms from liability over items posted on their platforms. Most of the problems around Section 230 involve which posts social networks allow to stand and which ones they remove. What is Section 230? Trump lost, Biden won, and the chairman of Trump's FCC, Ajit Pai, didn't pursue writing new regulations.Â. An effigy of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg as the "QAnon Shaman," one of the insurrectionists who invaded the Capitol on Jan. 6. © 2021 CNET, A RED VENTURES COMPANY. Mark Warner of Virginia, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii. "Section 230 has nothing to do with any intermediary adopting an ideological viewpoint," he said, noting that "researchers who have studied [internet censorship] don't see much evidence of [political bias] in the big platforms. 47 U.S.C. What that means in practice is that internet companies — everything from social media platforms to online retailers to news sites — are generally not liable if a user posts something illegal. Â, Then the election happened. After the election, Trump used social media to falsely claim victory. The FCC's top lawyer said it did. Some call for liability protections to go away entirely, others alter or refine the protections. Section 230, a provision in the Communications Decency Act, Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg and the fight for social media's soul -- and survival, Trump vs. Twitter: Here's what you need to know about the free speech showdown, Don't believe everything you read on social media and 7 other tough lessons, some politicians to call for the provision to be repealed or altered, interview with The New York Times editorial board, EFF said in a blog post discussing the Senate's SAFE Tech Act, reintroduced the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act. Pai said he was initiating an official FCC rulemaking proceeding seeking to “clarify” how Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act applies to social media companies. Technology built the open internet, and regulations like Section 230 protect it. Section 230 has two operative provisions. This means social media platforms can't be sued for taking down content or leaving it up.Â, By eliminating liability risk, Section 230 has allowed companies to experiment. While flawed, Section 230 has been important for more than two decades. Sen. Warner introduces Section 230 bill that would make it easier to sue social media platforms Published Fri, Feb 5 2021 12:06 PM EST Updated Fri, Feb 5 2021 6:40 PM EST Lauren Feiner @lauren_feiner There are bills that limit the scope of Section 230 by restricting types of activities protected under the law. Powered and implemented by FactSet. https://rubymediagroup.com/section-230-of-the-communications-decency-act But exactly what reform will look like is unclear. Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. Now the regulation is at the center of a high-stakes political battle that could reshape how we use social media, mobile apps and the open web. "You're making money. Section 230 is to social media companies what the Cayman Islands has long been to … He also noted that lawmakers would need to be careful about limiting the requirements to large online companies, so as not to penalize or burden startups.Â. House Minority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said Thursday that “it’s time to scrap” special protections for social media giants under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey echoed Pichai's sentiments. Social media firms have flourished under the regulation because it doesn't require companies to know about illegal or harmful content posted by users. The actions of Facebook and Twitter are protected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act. Meanwhile, some social media sites could be subject to a new law called notice-liability, meaning they're not liable for content they don't know about. he added. News provided by The Associated Press. ", First published on December 16, 2020 / 10:59 AM. These bills address reforms in various ways. Get the latest tech stories from CNET News every weekday. You're not passive bystanders," Pallone said during the hearing Thursday. (Biden was referring to the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, a sweeping privacy law. ), As the rhetoric around Section 230 has heated up, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle have introduced a flurry of legislation over the past year. Without Section 230, most experts agree it would be hard for startups and new tech firms to enter the online market because they would face high legal costs and liability risks. Nonprofits have benefited too.Â. Meanwhile, larger players like Facebook, which already have vast legal departments, would be unaffected financially by battling lawsuits.Â. Its history stretches back … CDA 230 — The Internet’s most important—and misunderstood—law, explained Section 230 is the legal foundation of social media, and it's under attack. Republican lawmakers allege that conservative voices are censored when tech platforms ban users for breaking site rules, like when YouTube removed Alex Jones's account for glorifying hate speech. Following the deadly attack on the Capitol, he was banned by Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms.Â, President Joe Biden, when he was a candidate for president, argued that social media companies don't deserve protection because they knowingly allow false information on their platforms.Â, In an interview with The New York Times editorial board in January 2020, Biden called for Section 230 to be "immediately" revoked. Under certain circumstances, Section 230 provides websites, including social media companies, that host or moderate content generated by others with immunity from liability. As the influence and size of companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook has grown, lawmakers say more regulation is needed to rein in their power.Â, "This panel has done something truly rare in Washington these days -- it's united Democrats and Republicans," Rep. Angie Craig, a Democrat from Minnesota said during the hearing, which lasted more than five hours. Section 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law (and itself part of the Telecommunications Act of the same year) that … But Democrats and watchdog groups, such as Public Knowledge, said the FCC doesn't have the authority to impose these regulations. Section 230 of the Communications Act in the U.S. is the section that safeguards social media companies from being held liable for the user’s posts. Both parties want to … First thing we have to do is define the difference between a social media platform and a publishing platform. But those systems are easily abused by trolls who complain loudly about content, Greene said. Democrats agree that reforms are needed, but they see the problem differently, arguing that Section 230 prevents social media companies from doing more to moderate their platforms, such as taking down or limiting hate speech and disinformation about COVID-19. © 2020 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. Seven bills have already been introduced in the first three months of this year, according to Future Tense, a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that's been tracking legislation on this issue.Â. It has allowed new companies to thrive and lets people express themselves online, supporters say. The social media law is in the crosshairs of Congress. And it isn't just big companies that gain from the law. CNN, "Trump signs executive order targeting social media companies," May 28, 2020 Congress.gov, H.R.277 - Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act Congress.gov, H.R.285 - CASE-IT Act "It creates incentives for people who don't like the speech to just complain about it. section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. Backers of Section 230 credit in part for the success of companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which depend on vast amounts of user-generated content. Market data provided by ICE Data Services. When asked if he supported Zuckerberg's proposed changes, he said there are "definitely good proposals around transparency and accountability," which the company would welcome. Section 230 generally provides immunity for website platforms from … CDA 230 — The Internet’s most important—and misunderstood—law, explained Section 230 is the legal foundation of social media, and it's under attack. “The biggest social networks are selectively censoring information,” McCarthy wrote in a tweet, linking to his press conference on the matter. For example, a bill might prohibit companies from using Section 230 as defense under certain conditions, such as in cases of child sexual exploitation, civil rights violations or in terrorism cases. The Department of Justice also recently proposed legislation that would make it easier for ordinary citizens to sue social media firms. The Communications Decency Act is an obscure law passed by Congress in 1996 that has profoundly shaped today’s internet. Without these protections, companies might not bother with moderation, he says, which would likely lead to even more offensive, false or misleading content online. "Today our laws give these companies a blank check to do nothing, rather than limit the spread of disinformation," said the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee,  Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey. 03. Section 230 protects internet companies from liability when they transmit or remove user-generated content, with some exceptions. However, that's only true for civil cases. The law shields not only internet service providers, like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, but also social media platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Google.Â. Greene said Section 230 has little to do with censorship and allows private internet companies to selectively edit which content and users they want on their platform. The law has served as a legal shield for social media companies. Most fundamentally, Section 230 provides immunity to social media companies like Facebook and Twitter TWTR +2.1% against being sued over the content on their site. "You should care about [230] if you use online intermediaries, which is everyone," Greene said. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act. Trump signed an executive order in May that targeted social media platforms and the content on their sites, aiming to remove the protections of Section 230 in the Communications Decency Act. Section 230’s defenders argue that any insufficiently targeted changes to the law could disrupt the modern internet as we know it, resulting in … Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230. ", Republicans allege that social media companies censor conservative viewpoints.Â. The claim that Justice Clarence Thomas found that social media companies do not have a First Amendment right to ban protected speech and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act … Earlier this month, Sens Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, and John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, reintroduced the Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act, which would make platforms' content moderation practices more transparent and hold those companies accountable for content that violates their own policies or is illegal.