FCC Will Clarify Section 230

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was intended to promote free expression of ideas by limiting platform exposure to a range of laws that apply to other publishers.

In principle, the Act provided a safe haven for websites and platforms that wanted to provide a platform for controversial or political speech and a legal environment favorable to free expression. It has not apparently worked out that way, as there is growing concern that platforms are acting to suppress free speech. 

Section 230 says that "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.”  

In other words, platforms that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. Ironically, a law intended to promote freedom of speech now is viewed by many as enabling the suppression of free speech. 

“Members of all three branches of the federal government have expressed serious concerns about the prevailing interpretation of the immunity set forth in Section 230 of the Communications Act,” says Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. “There is bipartisan support in Congress to reform the law.”

The Federal Communications Commission’s general counsel says the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1996. “Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rule making to clarify its meaning,” says Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai. 

“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech,” says “But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.” That 

The U.S. Department of Commerce has petitioned the Commission to “clarify ambiguities in section 230.” Earlier this week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that courts have relied upon “policy and purpose arguments to grant sweeping protections to Internet platforms’ that appear to go far beyond the actual text of the provision.“

Many believe that clarification process is likely to remove “overly broad” interpretation that in some cases shields social media companies from consumer protection laws.

It is perhaps an unfortunate development, to the extent that the antidote to limited free speech would preferably be  “more speech by more speakers,” as the corrective to market monopoly is “more competition.”