On June 17, the United States Department of Justice issued new recommendations to roll back decades-old protections for online platforms publishing third-party content.


Section 230 and internet censorship



Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act became law in 1996, as the public
was only just coming to welcome the internet into their day-to-day
lives. The controversial law freed platforms from legal liability for
content from third-parties.


The DoJ’s recommendations
include ending immunity for content involving child abuse, terrorism and
cyberstalking. It also argues that Section 230:



“Does
not apply in a specific case where a platform had actual knowledge or
notice that the third party content at issue violated federal criminal
law.”



Moreover, the new suggestions would
make online platforms liable in civil, not criminal court, for a broader
category of illicit and harmful content. Civil court does not risk jail
time, but allows monetary punishments that can stamp out businesses
operating platforms.


Follow-up to Trump’s attack in May



Platforms that depend on Section 230 include Facebook and Twitter. At the end of May, President Trump sent out an executive order
that many saw as a retaliation against Twitter in particular for what
his office termed censorship by these platforms. The order says:



“Twitter,
Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented,
power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete,
or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see.”



Within days of that order, the Center for Democracy and Technology filed suit
against Trump, calling the new order a violation of the First
Amendment. A representative for the center explained the role of Section
230 in protecting online services to a degree that, for example,
newspapers do not enjoy:



“Online services,
even very small ones, deal with an unwieldy volume of user-generated
content that they cannot possibly review before publishing. Section 230
is designed to give them the legal certainty they need to be able to
moderate content that comes to their attention, without risking
liability for all content on their platform.”



Bullish for decentralized platforms?



Contrary
to popular belief, decentralized platforms also depend on Section 230’s
protections. David Greene, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), explained to Cointelegraph:



“Everyone
who's intermediary benefits from Section 230, both in your ability to
decide that you're going to moderate because Section 30 protects
moderation decisions as well as those who decide they're not going to
because Section 230 protects liability. It's based on when you don't do
anything to the contents at all. So I think it would be very
short-sighted for anybody to think that this particular threat to
Section 230 is really, truly only attacking the moderation side.”



In March, the EFF flagged a bill that likewise seemed to be a direct attack on Facebook for perceived bias.