On Its 30th Birthday, Section 230 Remains The Lynchpin For Users' Speech

"For thirty years, internet users have benefited from a key federal law that allows everyone to express themselves, find community, organize politically, and participate in society. Section 230, which protects internet users' speech by protecting the online intermediaries we rely on, is the legal support that sustains the internet as we know it. Yet as Section 230 turns 30 this week, there are bipartisan proposals in Congress to either repeal or sunset the law."

"But rolling back or eliminating Section 230 will not stop invasive corporate surveillance that harms all internet users. Killing Section 230 won't end to the dominance of the current handful of large tech companies-it would cement their monopoly power. The current proposals also ignore a crucial question: what legal standard should replace Section 230? The bills provide no answer, refusing to grapple with the tradeoffs inherent in making online intermediaries liable for users' speech."

"This glaring omission shows what these proposals really are: grievances masquerading as legislation, not serious policy. Especially when the speech problems with alternatives to Section 230's immunity are readily apparent, both in the U.S. and around the world. Experience shows that those systems result in more censorship of internet users' lawful speech. Let's be clear: EFF defends Section 230 because it is the best available system to protect users' speech online."

Section 230 immunizes online intermediaries for users' speech, enabling widespread expression, community building, political organization, and social participation. Current bipartisan proposals in Congress would repeal or sunset Section 230 in response to harmful and anti-competitive practices by large tech companies. Repealing Section 230 would not stop invasive corporate surveillance and would likely cement the dominance of the largest tech platforms. The proposed bills do not specify a replacement legal standard and fail to address tradeoffs of making intermediaries liable for users' speech. Historical and international experience shows liability-focused systems lead to greater censorship of lawful user speech. EFF defends Section 230 as the best available protection for online speech.

Read at Electronic Frontier Foundation