230 gone too far
Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230 generally provides immunity for website platforms from third-party content.
These little piece of legislation in the US law, is what nearly destroyed the reputation of an entire family — with no fault of their own. In fact, it was a long-time family foe with intent of vengeance and a witty loophole strategy, who decided it was time to take revenge on her ex-employers for firing them for her job many years ago.
This story was originally reported by NY times in an episode of The Daily — called A Vast Web of Vengeance. This story explores what happens when section 230 is used as a legislative armor to protect oneself while damaging the online presence of another. Without paraphrasing too much, an individual decides to post demeaning and defaming posts about a family on outlandish websites like rip of report and cheater buster. When the family finds out, they request the posts be taken down by the website, however because of section 230, the website platform has immunity from being responsible for the posts made by the user. The podcast tells us the story of what happens next, and I would recommend you give it a listen.
Section 230 was passed into law in 1996. In the internet age — that is old. To give you some context, here is a list of internet companies that were formed after 1996. For simplicity reasons, let’s just mention those that are social media companies or platforms or sorts.
TikTok
Snapchat
YouTube
And many more…
Even MySpace was founded after 1996. MySpace. Can you believe that?
The point I am trying to make is that when this legislation was passed into law, the world looked very different. The internet has changed the way we interact with the world today, and nothing could predicted what shape or form the digital age would take. While section 230 provides immunity to website platforms, the implications of not amending it to today’s norms is problematic.
The attacks on the capitol building on January 6 is an example of wheat happens when fake news and extremist propaganda is circulated on these platforms without oversight. While I am all for freedom of speech, what that means is changing.
The second amendment of the US constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
However, the definition of what is free has changed over the last 200 years. One of the most influential changes in the definition of free speech was in the supreme court case of Abrams v United States — in which an influential supreme court judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. commented on what freedom of speech was, and how the definition of it is changing. He said, “That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.”
Just like that, section 230 was a legislation at a time, but it is just a theory — almost an experiment. And while the world changes around it, it must change to.
