What is Section 230, and Why is it So Important?
On October 15th, Federal Communications Commission chairman Ajit Pai stated his intention to clarify the meaning of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and how it is applied. This decision followed an explosive political news story in the New York Post. The story itself wasn’t the problem. The issue was that social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook subjectively chose to restrict this story on their platforms.
The subjective decision to limit news stories is troubling under the light of Section 203, so therefore it is valuable to understand what Section 203 is and why it is essential. By way of definition, Section 230 states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher/speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Plainly said, Section 203 protects tech giants such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube from being held responsible for content posted on their platform by their users. This means that they are immune from legal liability. They cannot be sued.
The logic behind immunity is that the tech giants act simply as DISTRIBUTORS of content, not PUBLISHERS. According to an analysis by Wake Up Right, problems arise when the social media platforms start to editorialize, censor, or audit content on their platform. Such editorializing moves the tech giants away from DISTRIBUTORS and toward PUBLISHERS. Therefore, they should not be immunity from legal liability.
It is beyond unfair that social media platforms filtering content cannot be sued, but the New York Post can be sued. They are essentially operating the same way but receiving different treatment. When social media companies behave like broadcasters, they are not entitled to the immunity denied to other media outlets.
