Section 230: An Overview April 7, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46751 SUMMARY R46751 Section 230: An Overview April 7, 2021 Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, provides limited federal immunity to providers and users of interactive Valerie C. Brannon computer services. The law generally precludes providers and users from being held liable—that Legislative Attorney is, legally responsible—for information provided by a third party, but does not prevent them from being held legally responsible for information that they have developed or for activities unrelated to third-party content. Courts have interpreted Section 230 to foreclose a wide variety of lawsuits Eric N. Holmes and to preempt laws that would make providers and users liable for third-party content. For Legislative Attorney example, the law has been applied to protect online service providers like social media companies from lawsuits based on their decisions to transmit or take down user-generated content. Two provisions of Section 230 are the primary framework for this immunity. First, Section 230(c)(1) specifies that service providers and users may not “be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., an influential case interpreting this provision, a federal appeals court said that Section 230(c)(1) bars “lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content.” Second, Section 230(c)(2) states that service providers and users may not be held liable for voluntarily acting in good faith to restrict access to “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable” material. Section 230(c)(2) is thus more limited: it applies only to good-faith takedowns of objectionable material, while courts have interpreted Section 230(c)(1) to apply to both distribution and takedown decisions. Section 230 contains statutory exceptions. This federal immunity generally will not apply to suits brought under federal criminal law, intellectual property law, any state law “consistent” with Section 230, certain privacy laws applicable to electronic communications, or certain federal and state laws relating to sex trafficking. In recent years, legislators and outside commentators have debated the proper scope of Section 230. While the law does have a number of defenders, others have argued that courts have interpreted Section 230 immunity too broadly. In the 116th Congress, 26 bills would have amended the scope of Section 230 immunity. These proposals ranged from outright repeal, to placing certain conditions on immunity, to creating narrower exceptions allowing certain types of lawsuits. Some bills sought to amend the scope of Section 230(c)(1), limiting “publisher” immunity in an attempt to encourage sites to take down certain types of undesirable content. Others sought to encourage sites to host more content by narrowing immunity for certain types of takedown decisions. The executive branch also weighed in on Section 230 reform in 2020, with proposals from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Department of Justice. One issue raised by these proposals concerned whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regulatory authority to implement Section 230. While the FCC generally has authority to administer the Communications Act of 1934, to date, the FCC has not played a role in interpreting or applying Section 230, and Section 230 does not explicitly mention the FCC. Commentators have thus disputed whether Congress intended to vest the FCC with regulatory authority over Section 230 and whether the statute contains any ambiguous language that could be clarified through FCC regulation. In addition, proposals to amend Section 230 may raise two distinct types of First Amendment issues. The first issue is whether any given proposal infringes the constitutionally protected speech of either providers or users. This concern may be especially acute if a proposal restricts providers’ editorial discretion or creates content- or viewpoint-based distinctions. The second issue is whether, if Section 230 is repealed in whole or in part, the First Amendment may nonetheless prevent private parties or the government from holding providers liable for publishing content. The First Amendment might prevent some claims premised on decisions to host or restrict others’ speech, but its protections are likely less extensive than the current scope of Section 230 immunity. Congressional Research Service Section 230: An Overview Contents Text and Legislative History ........................................................................................................... 1 Section 104: Online Family Empowerment .............................................................................. 5 Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. ........................................................................ 6 Judicial Interpretation ...................................................................................................................... 8 Section 230(c)(1): Publisher Activity ........................................................................................ 9 Early Interpretations: Zeran v. America Online, Inc. ........................................................ 10 Service Provider Role as Publisher .................................................................................... 11 Information Provided by Another Information Content Provider ..................................... 14 Section 230(c)(2)(A): Restricting Access to Objectionable Material...................................... 19 Good Faith ........................................................................................................................ 20 Objectionable Material...................................................................................................... 21 Section 230(c)(2)(B): Enabling Access Restriction ................................................................ 22 Section 230(e): Exceptions ..................................................................................................... 24 Federal Criminal Law ....................................................................................................... 24 Intellectual Property Law .................................................................................................. 25 State Law .......................................................................................................................... 27 Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ............................................................. 28 Sex Trafficking Law (FOSTA).......................................................................................... 28 Reform Proposals and Considerations for Congress ..................................................................... 29 Overview of Reform Proposals ............................................................................................... 30 FCC ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Existing Legal Authority ................................................................................................... 37 Deference to FCC Regulation ........................................................................................... 40 Considerations for Congress ............................................................................................. 42 Free Speech Considerations .................................................................................................... 42 Background Principles ...................................................................................................... 43 First Amendment Issues with Reform Proposals .............................................................. 47 Comparing the Operation of First Amendment and Section 230 Protections ................... 52 Contacts Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 54 Congressional Research Service Section 230: An Overview n 1996, Congress passed a suite of measures to amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to protect children on the internet. The new measures were known collectively as the Communications Decency Act (CDA).1 Some portions of the CDA directly imposed liability I 2 for transmitting obscene or harassing material online, including two provisions that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional in 1997.3 The CDA’s new Section 230 of the Communications Act4 took a different approach.5 It sought to allow users and providers of “interactive computer services” to make their own content moderation decisions, while still permitting liability in certain limited contexts.6 Since its passage, federal courts have interpreted Section 230 as creating expansive immunity for claims based on third-party content that appears online.7 Consequently, internet companies and users frequently rely on Section 230’s protections to avoid liability in federal and state litigation. But in recent years, commentators and jurists have expressed concern that the broad immunity courts