by Willow Tohi, Natural News:
-
- Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect online platforms from liability for user-generated content, promoting free speech. However, courts have misinterpreted the law, turning it into a shield for Big Tech to silence dissent and control information flow.
-
- Courts have expanded the scope of Section 230(c)(1) to grant absolute immunity to platforms, which was not the original intent. This distortion has allowed tech giants to act as gatekeepers, silencing dissenting voices and eliminating competition.
- The misapplication of Section 230 raises serious concerns about due process and civil liberties, as it grants unchecked power to platforms to censor speech without legal accountability. Courts have also misused procedural rules to dismiss cases improperly.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
-
- The concentration of power in tech giants has led to the erosion of free speech and competition, threatening democratic processes and the free market. This distortion has given a few large companies control over information and public discourse.
-
- The Supreme Court has the opportunity to correct the misuse of Section 230 by clarifying its scope and intent. This would require platforms to prove their Section 230 defense, protect due process, enforce procedural safeguards, and ensure legal accountability, ultimately restoring the law’s intended purpose.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, often hailed as the “Magna Carta of the internet,” was intended to protect free speech by shielding online platforms from liability for user-generated content. However, courts have misinterpreted this law, turning it into a tool that Big Tech uses to silence dissent, eliminate competition and control the flow of information. This article explores how the courts’ misapplication of Section 230 has broken the internet and proposes a path to restoration.
Original intent of Section 230
Section 230 was designed to promote a free and open internet by allowing platforms to host user-generated content without being legally responsible for what users posted. It was meant to be a liability shield, not an absolute immunity from suit. The statute’s key provision, 230(c)(1), states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the “publisher or speaker” of any information provided by another content provider. This was intended to protect platforms from being held liable for third-party content while encouraging them to remove harmful material in good faith under 230(c)(2).
However, courts have expanded 230(c)(1) to cover all publishing decisions, including content moderation and algorithmic recommendations. This distortion has allowed Big Tech to act as gatekeepers of the digital public square, silencing voices they deem undesirable and controlling the narrative.
Judicial misinterpretation of Section 230
There have been some misinterpretations of Section 230 that contributed to it’s misuse.
“The” vs. “A” Publisher
A small but crucial mistake in legal citations has significantly altered the application of Section 230. Courts have misquoted the statute, changing the definite article “the” to the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “the publisher or speaker.” This seemingly minor change has profound implications. The original text means that platforms cannot be treated as the original author of third-party content. However, courts have interpreted it to mean that platforms cannot be treated as “a” publisher at all, thereby granting them absolute immunity for their own editorial decisions.
For example, in the case of Fyk v. Facebook, Judge White wrote in his dismissal order: “Because the CDA bars all claims that seek to hold an interactive computer service liable as a publisher of third-party content, the Court finds that the CDA precludes Plaintiff’s claims.”
