Section 230 under attack: Why we must defend online freedom of speech

Imagine a world where your every online utterance is subject to censorship by powerful tech companies and governmental entities. This is the reality that we may soon face if attempts to roll back Section 230 protections are successful. This little-known law, passed in 1996 as part of the federal Communications Decency Act, has been instrumental in protecting online freedom of speech by shielding websites from being held liable for the content their users post.

What is Section 230?

Section 230 is a crucial law that protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content. It has been a topic of much debate in recent years, with some arguing that the law needs to be reformed to hold platforms accountable for the spread of misinformation and harmful content. But others take the view that Section 230’s protections are what have allowed the modern internet to flourish by allowing platform operators the freedom to run their platforms as they choose — and without bureaucratic red tape restricting their activities.

Protecting Civic Engagement

Section 230 has not only protected our freedom of speech online, but it has also upheld civic engagement by encouraging the development of platforms that promote online public participation. Without it, websites and other platforms on the internet would be forced to heavily moderate their users’ content to avoid legal liability, or close their eyes to harmful content entirely, stifling the free exchange of ideas and opinions that is vital for a functioning democracy.

The ability for individuals to openly share their thoughts and perspectives online has been integral to the development of a well-informed and engaged citizenry.

Empowering Smaller Platforms

Section 230 has played a crucial role in empowering smaller platforms to innovate and flourish with the same parity as “Big Tech” platforms. Without the liability protections afforded by Section 230, many smaller platforms and start-ups would be unable to compete with larger, established companies that have the resources to moderate their users’ content and defend against legal action.

This would stifle competition and limit the diversity of voices and perspectives available online. Section 230 allows these smaller platforms to take risks and try new things without the threat of unfounded legal repercussions, fostering a more dynamic and ever-evolving digital landscape.

The Unintended Consequences of Reform

Many of the drives to reform Section 230 are rooted in concerns about the algorithmic amplification and content moderation practices of large social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter. Both issues are worthy of further scrutiny from lawmakers and civil society groups.

However, in their drive to punish “big tech,” policymakers seeking to undermine Section 230 immunity risk creating unintended second and third-order consequences that will stifle the ability of smaller, less algorithmically driven platforms to carry out civic missions and foster online democracy due to a newfound risk of liability for content that platforms had no role in creating.

This in turn will create a chilling effect against citizens seeking to speak out online, especially those that might include whistleblowers and those from marginalized groups who have been disparately impacted by current policies.

Conclusion

As a society, we must recognize the importance of protecting online speech and civic engagement, and we must resist any attempts to weaken or repeal this crucial law. This will ensure that the public has access to the information they need to engage in the democratic process and hold government officials accountable, and technology platforms can have the freedom to build innovative solutions to make that happen.

The free flow of information is a cornerstone of democracy, and citizens should have access to the information they need to hold their government accountable.