U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said Friday he was moving to file a bipartisan bill to repeal Section 230 of America's Communications Decency Act.
"The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say," explains an EFF blog post.
"Experts argue that a repeal of Section 230 could kill free speech on the internet," writes LiveMint — though America's last two presidents both supported a reapl:
During his first presidency, US President Donald Trump called to repeal the law and signed an executive order attempting to curb some of its protections, though it was challenged in court.
Subsequently, former President Joe Biden also voiced his opinion against the law.
An EFF blog post explains the case for Section 230:
Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms. When harmful speech takes place, it's the speaker that should be held responsible, not the service that hosts the speech... Without Section 230, the Internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, particularly on controversial subjects. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet, controlling the speech of platforms and users. If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won't even get started, because they'll face overwhelming legal risk to host users' speech.
But "I strongly believe that Section 230 has long outlived its use," Senator Whitehouse said this week, saying Section 230 "a real vessel for evil that needs to come to an end."
"The laws that Section 230 protect these big platforms from are very often laws that go back to the common law of England, that we inherited when this country was initially founded. I mean, these are long-lasting, well-tested, important legal constraints that have — they've met the test of time, not by the year or by the decade, but by the century.
"And yet because of this crazy Section 230, these ancient and highly respected doctrines just don't reach these people. And it really makes no sense, that if you're an internet platform you get treated one way; you do the exact same thing and you're a publisher, you get treated a completely different way.
"And so I think that the time has come.... It really makes no sense... [Testimony before the committee] shows how alone and stranded people are when they don't have the chance to even get justice. It's bad enough to have to live through the tragedy... But to be told by a law of Congress, you can't get justice because of the platform — not because the law is wrong, not because the rule is wrong, not because this is anything new — simply because the wrong type of entity created this harm."
"The law prevents most civil suits against users or services that are based on what others say," explains an EFF blog post.
"Experts argue that a repeal of Section 230 could kill free speech on the internet," writes LiveMint — though America's last two presidents both supported a reapl:
During his first presidency, US President Donald Trump called to repeal the law and signed an executive order attempting to curb some of its protections, though it was challenged in court.
Subsequently, former President Joe Biden also voiced his opinion against the law.
An EFF blog post explains the case for Section 230:
Congress passed this bipartisan legislation because it recognized that promoting more user speech online outweighed potential harms. When harmful speech takes place, it's the speaker that should be held responsible, not the service that hosts the speech... Without Section 230, the Internet is different. In Canada and Australia, courts have allowed operators of online discussion groups to be punished for things their users have said. That has reduced the amount of user speech online, particularly on controversial subjects. In non-democratic countries, governments can directly censor the internet, controlling the speech of platforms and users. If the law makes us liable for the speech of others, the biggest platforms would likely become locked-down and heavily censored. The next great websites and apps won't even get started, because they'll face overwhelming legal risk to host users' speech.
But "I strongly believe that Section 230 has long outlived its use," Senator Whitehouse said this week, saying Section 230 "a real vessel for evil that needs to come to an end."
"The laws that Section 230 protect these big platforms from are very often laws that go back to the common law of England, that we inherited when this country was initially founded. I mean, these are long-lasting, well-tested, important legal constraints that have — they've met the test of time, not by the year or by the decade, but by the century.
"And yet because of this crazy Section 230, these ancient and highly respected doctrines just don't reach these people. And it really makes no sense, that if you're an internet platform you get treated one way; you do the exact same thing and you're a publisher, you get treated a completely different way.
"And so I think that the time has come.... It really makes no sense... [Testimony before the committee] shows how alone and stranded people are when they don't have the chance to even get justice. It's bad enough to have to live through the tragedy... But to be told by a law of Congress, you can't get justice because of the platform — not because the law is wrong, not because the rule is wrong, not because this is anything new — simply because the wrong type of entity created this harm."
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
/s3/static.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/14104023/141225BUI_2027090941_BondiBeach3.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/14155730/141225SPO_2026470161_Snellink.jpg)
