Nancy Pelosi Joins Ted Cruz And Louis Gohmert In Attacking CDA 230

from the not-great dept

Well, it appears that the attacks on Section 230 of the CDA are now officially bi-partisan. Following the path of Republicans Rep. Louis Gohmert and Senator Ted Cruz, now we have Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi deciding it's time to attack Section 230 of the CDA, by completely misrepresenting what it does, why it does that, and what it means to the internet. In a podcast with Kara Swisher, Pelosi said the following:

“230 is a gift to them, and I don’t think they are treating it with the respect that they should,” she said. “And so I think that that could be a question mark and in jeopardy. ... For the privilege of 230, there has to be a bigger sense of responsibility on it, and it is not out of the question that that could be removed.”

This is wrong on so many levels. Section 230 is not a "gift" to the tech companies. It's a gift to the public and their ability to speak freely on the internet. Section 230 is what enables all of these websites out there that allow us to speak out without having to get what we want to say approved.

And to argue that companies don't "respect" Section 230 is weird, given that internet companies have spent basically the past 20 years fighting for Section 230 and explaining why it was so important, while almost everyone else downplayed it, didn't care about it, or didn't understand it. The only internet company right now that doesn't seem to "respect" Section 230 would be Facebook, which caved in and supported chipping away at Section 230's important protections.

Look, it is completely fair to argue that the big internet companies have lots of very real problems -- including questions about how they treat their users, and about privacy. But the focus on Section 230 is bizarre and misguided. And attacking it in this way will literally do the opposite of what Pelosi seems to think it will. Removing Section 230 won't help bring about more competition. It won't help make the companies "act better." Rather, stripping 230 protections means that you won't get smaller companies building competing services to Facebook and Google, because it will be way too risky on the liability side. Facebook and Google can afford the fight. Others cannot.

Stripping 230 protections won't encourage companies to act better. It will encourage them to either not accept any user-generated content (removing the key communications function of the internet) or to stop moderating entirely, meaning that you end up with just the worst parts of the internet -- spam-filled, troll-filled garbage. Anyone who knows the first thing about Section 230, and why it was put in place, understands this. Unfortunately, there's the idea out there that Section 230 was a "gift" to the internet companies. It is not. It's a gift to the internet itself, meaning to all of us as users of the internet.

But, given that it's now a bi-partisan thing to misrepresent and attack CDA 230, perhaps we're reaching the end of the open internet experiment.

Filed Under: cda 230, free speech, intermediary liability, internet, nancy pelosi, responsibility, section 230


Reader Comments

The First Word

Stripping 230 protections won't encourage companies to act better. It will encourage them to either not accept any user-generated content (removing the key communications function of the internet) or to stop moderating entirely, meaning that you end up with just the worst parts of the internet -- spam-filled, troll-filled garbage. Anyone who knows the first thing about Section 230, and why it was put in place, understands this.

This is absolutely correct and it’s sad to see politicians either display ignorance of the origins and purpose of 47 USC 230, or to just outright lie about it out of the idea that it will gain them some minor advantage (which it won’t).

To briefly recap, prior to the enactment of the safe harbor there were three applicable legal precedents. The first was the old rule that the publisher of defamatory content was responsible for it just as the author was, because they had the opportunity to review it and verify it. The second was Cubby, Inc. v Compuserve, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135 (SDNY 1991), which held that online services that hosted defamatory content were not responsible for it if it was uploaded by the users without the knowledge or approval of the service. Basically, this gave sites protection so long as they didn’t moderate. The third was Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services, Co., 1995 WL 323710 (NY Sup. Ct. 1995) which held that if the online service moderated anything at all, then it was liable even for things that it approved, ignored, or had been in error about.

The result was predictable: the only two safe options were to 1) not moderate anything, which would lead to ads, spam, defamation, hate speech, etc. proliferating, or 2) not allow posting, which would prevent even benign users from having a voice.

At about the same time, Congress decided it wanted online services to take voluntary steps to remove porn from online. But none of the services were stupid enough to try, since they couldn’t moderate everything perfectly, requiring them to either moderate nothing or not allow posting.

Exasperated, Congress gave the services protection — if they moderated imperfectly it wouldn’t be held against them, and as they couldn’t compel moderation, it would be up to each site to determine how much or how little to do. Thus, a site could remove porn and spam and malware but allow users to talk with one another without careful policing of every single post.

Cutting into this protection for any reason will just put us back to the earlier position of allow everything or allow nothing, with no in between.

Complaints of free speech, political bias, etc are totally ridiculous and should be ignored. That’s not what the issue is.

—cpt kangarooski

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Apr 2019 @ 10:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TWO ABSOLUTELY BEDROCK CASES support my view

    I differ from you whether the US Gov't should protect the border against foreign invaders

    Protecting the border from invaders and abusing innocent immigrants are two VERY different things. The US was founded on an open border/immigration policy. Hell, the founders of the US WERE immigrants.

    you clearly don't agree with the mere existence of US border control Your basic position is want foreign invaders to swarm in and take over

    He never said that. No one is saying that.

    MY country

    You don't own the country moron. Other people live here to.

    We can't possibly discuss on that basis.

    You're right, because you haven't said one single thing based in reality.

    Borders are not Constitutional (or normal rights) zones for ANY country, else it ceases to be a country.

    The Constitution says you're wrong.


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.