Section 230 of U.S. Communications Decency Act [UPSC Current Affairs]

Two lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) by the families of persons killed by ISIS terror attacks to interpret Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996. It is expected that the ruling will have deep implications for the internet as we know it today. In this context, it is important to understand what the US Communications Decency Act of 1996 says and how the lawsuits could affect internet usage, for the UPSC exam GS-3 paper.

Section 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996

• Section 230 acts as a “safe harbour” or “liability shield” for social media platforms and users against any content posted by a third-party user.
• Section 230 protects users and social media platforms against any legal liability for online information provided by third parties.
• Google’s lawyer in the Gonzalez case describes section 230 as the “26 words that created the internet”.
• Section 230 also protects companies from a host of cases filed against them by a user for content posted by another user.
• Section 230 also allows service providers to moderate the content posted on their platforms and to remove content that violates their guidelines for reasons like obscene content. 
• The law also allows platforms to remove the content as long as it is done in good faith.

Two cases going before the US Supreme Court: The petitioners are suing Google for recommending ISIS videos to users through its recommendations algorithm and the court filings argue that video hosting platform Youtube aided and abetted ISIS in spreading terrorism which is actionable under US anti-terrorism law.

Why is it considered that any change in law will change the internet?

• In January 2023, a group of technology-based companies, users and rights-based groups approached SCOTUS by filing amicus curiae and urged the supreme court to keep section 230 remain unchanged.
• Twitter argued in its filing that there is a generation of a huge volume of data every day and section 230 enables platforms to moderate content to provide the most relevant information to users.
• Reddit in its filing argued that the theory of the petitioner has the potential to dilute the immunity provided under section 230 and also the ability to moderate the content.
• Microsoft pointed out that altering section 230 will impact the algorithm used in Github which is an open-source software-building platform.
• Evan Greer, who is a digital rights activist, also argued that altering section 230 will lead to the suppression of information which is of social and political importance brought to light by third parties like minority rights groups.

Opinion of the Court:

• In the initial hearing, SCOTUS was cautious of altering section 230 which provided immunity and suggested that the Youtube algorithm simply acted as a 21st-century version of putting together a group of things a person may want to look at, which has been happening for a long time.
• The court also noted that the algorithm is used everywhere from google search, Youtube or Twitter and asked the lawyers of the Gonzalez family whether accepting their case will make section 230 meaningless.
• A separate filing by authors of the statute mentioned that the aim of the law was to give immunity to the nascent internet and to create a technologically agnostic immunity clause to protect technology companies from being liable for imperfect algorithms.

Section 230 of U.S. Communications Decency Act:- Download PDF Here