How Democrats & Republicans Want to Change Section 230

Who should be liable if an individual is radicalized by what they encounter on the internet? If a user of X, TikTok, Truth Social, or a WordPress-hosted blog encounters extreme ideas on the platform and is inspired to violently attack a person or group of people, who is responsible? 

In criminal and civil law, it is typical for multiple individuals to be held responsible for a crime. For example, if a drunk driver is arrested for vehicular manslaughter, the courts may also target the bartender who overserved him and the owner of the bar who failed to enforce strong policies against serving patrons too much liquor. 

But when it comes to the internet, there are legal protections for companies that allow dangerous content on their platforms. That violent individual can be arrested, as well as the person who knowingly posted content online that was designed to inspire violence. But the platform where the content was posted? They cannot be held responsible, even if they knew about the content and failed to remove it. 

On the one hand, this makes sense, because it allows individuals more outlets for free speech without tech companies interfering in what they share. But on the other hand, this rule allows violent and discriminatory content to thrive online. 

All of this is because of Section 230. 

In the last several years, Republicans and Democrats alike have proposed changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which is part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. However, each side has very different reasons for wanting to see changes made to Section 230. 

To understand the current debate on this controversial federal policy, you have to step back and understand the law itself and how it has impacted the internet as we know it.

What is Section 230? 

Section 230 was part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which itself was an update to the Communications Act of 1934.  As an amendment, the CDA was added because of concerns about minors accessing pornography and other sexual or indecent materials on the internet.

The goal of Section 230 was to provide limited federal immunity to both providers and users of what the law called “interactive computer services.” That includes anyone who uses or engages with interactive online sites where content is created, shared, or displayed.

Section 230 gave some immunity to platforms, websites, and ISPs for the content on their sites. In short, these providers are not held liable for the content their users post. At the same time, providers were given permission to make a good-faith effort to restrict access to objectionable materials online. They can remove, delete, or hide content that they feel violates their Terms of Service (ToS) or federal law. 

Additional aspects of Section 230

In addition to immunity, other key aspects of Section 230 include:

1. “Good Samaritan” protection: The same platforms that are permitted to The law allows platforms to moderate content without fear of liability. They can remove or restrict access to material they deem objectionable, even if that material is constitutionally protected.
2. Facilitation of free speech: By protecting platforms from lawsuits over user-generated content, Section 230 has enabled the growth of social media, review sites, and other interactive online services where users can freely express themselves.
3. Some exceptions: The immunity described in Section 230 does not extend to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, or communications privacy law. 

Democrat and Republican responses to Section 230 

Section 230 is interesting because of the complexity of responses to it over nearly 30 decades. Instead of being supported by one party and opposed by another, it has been celebrated by Republicans and Democrats and it has been criticized by both parties. 

In 2021, a Senate bill was introduced to repeal Section 230, led by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. That same year, Democrats introduced their own bill to repeal Section 230. The opposition to this federal rule is based on very different concerns, but both parties have communicated their intent to eliminate this established rule. 

How do Democrats feel about Section 230? 

Democrats may support Section 230 for the following reasons: 

1. It protects free speech online by allowing platforms to host diverse content without fear of lawsuits
2. It enables innovation and the growth of tech startups without excessive legal burdens
3. It allows platforms to moderate harmful content like hate speech without losing legal protections

However, Democrats also criticize the following elements of the rule: 

1. It gives too much power to large tech companies with little accountability
2. It enables the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories
3. It protects platforms that fail to adequately address harassment and abuse
4. It may hinder efforts to combat political manipulation and foreign interference in elections

What about Republicans and Section 230? 

Republicans who support Section 230 argue that: 

1. It promotes free market principles by limiting government intervention in online platforms
2. It protects businesses from excessive litigation
3. It fosters innovation and economic growth in the tech sector

Republication objections to Section 230 are based on the following: 

1. It allows perceived censorship of conservative viewpoints by “Big Tech”
2. It gives platforms too much latitude in content moderation decisions
3. It shields tech companies from accountability for their editorial decisions
4. It may enable platforms to unfairly influence political discourse

Opposition and support for Section 230 aren’t always party-specific

It’s worth noting that views on Section 230 don’t always fall neatly along party lines. Some key areas of debate include:

1. Content moderation: Both parties have concerns about content moderation, but often for different reasons. Democrats tend to push for more moderation of hate speech and misinformation, while Republicans often argue against what they see as censorship of conservative views.
2. Tech company accountability: Both parties have expressed interest in increasing accountability for large tech companies, but differ on how to approach this.
3. Proposed reforms: Various lawmakers from both parties have proposed reforms to Section 230, ranging from minor tweaks to major overhauls or even repeal.
4. Balancing free speech and safety: Both parties grapple with how to balance protecting free expression online with addressing genuine harms and illegal activity.

These perspectives continue to evolve as the digital landscape changes and new challenges emerge. 

Proposed changes to Section 230 from both parties 

As more challenges to Section 230 arise, you will likely see different proposals from Democrats and Republicans. 

Democratic-led proposals may include: 

• Increased platform responsibility for the spreading of misinformation, especially if it relates to elections, public health, and democracy
• Requirements to remove hate speech and harassment
• Child safety provisions to protect minors from harmful content
• Immunity carve-out exceptions to Section 230 for things like stalking, non-consensual sharing of private images, and civil rights violations 

Republican-led proposals may include: 

• Requirements for platforms to be politically neutral in their content moderation rules 
• Narrowing of protections so that Section 230 protects startups more than large, established tech companies that have had time to develop good rules
• Transparency in content removal policies

How to protect yourself from hate speech and harassment online 

Whether Section 230 is left alone or changed by Democrats, Republicans, or a bipartisan effort, individuals must take steps to protect themselves from hate speech and harassment. Anyone can become the target of cyberbullying, especially young people. 

Use What Is My IP Address’s collection of tools and resources to protect your identity online.