by Nisha Khatri ‘26

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has been the subject of contentious debate in recent months. Although it was originally enacted to protect social media companies from liability for user posts, many now hope for its repeal or adjustment to hold big tech companies accountable for the content posted on their sites.

At its surface level, Section 230 protects websites from being punished for what users post, even if such speech is illegal. People also cannot sue users and services for sharing potentially dangerous or objectionable content. Although the First Amendment was never intended to protect libel, fraud, or instigation of violence, Section 230 seems to protect these types of speech due in part to its vague wording.

House Energy and Commerce Committee members drafted a bipartisan draft legislation to terminate Section 230 in May 2024. Their proposal would require tech giants and other platforms to work with Congress for more than 18 months to enact improved legislation allowing for creativity and free speech in addition to a safe online environment. If tech giants do not cooperate, the Committee warns that they may fully lose Section 230 protections.

Others suggest a “repeal and renew” approach to improve the present social media environment. This approach would shield the speech of ordinary citizens but not social media giants since it would allow for differentiation between protected and unprotected speech in accordance with the First Amendment. Users would have the freedom to state their opinions, but social media companies would not get to manipulate their algorithms to incentivize toxicity, intimidation, and hateful speech for profit-driven engagement.

Discarding Section 230 completely, though, could cause major issues. Instead of solely impacting social media giants, the move would also harm small companies. Online platforms would need to screen and approve all content of their users, placing an undue burden on newer businesses who may not have the resources for this level of moderation.

In order to enact lasting change with fewer negative impacts and prevent further exploitation of Section 230, Congress could consider carefully clarifying portions of it. For instance, while Section 230 does not consider platforms as the speaker of information being provided, it can be considered a distributor of third-party content if it purposefully enhances hurtful content. Changes such as these, along with further discourse and collaborative efforts towards transparency, can help spur reforms and reduce harmful speech in the future.