• (This appeared as an op-ed published Friday, Feb. • 6 in the Daily Journal, a California legal newspaper.) Section 230, “the 26 words that created the internet,” was enacted 30 years ago this week. • It was no rush-job-rather, it was the result of wise legislative deliberation and foresight, and it remains the best bulwark to protect free expression online. • The internet lets people everywhere connect, share ideas and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. • Our unprecedented ability to communicate online-on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive-is not an accident. • In writing Section 230, Congress recognized that for free expression to thrive on the internet, it had to protect the services that power users’ speech.
Article Summaries:
- The op‑ed, published Feb. 6 in the Daily Journal, argues that weakening Section 230 would stifle online speech. It explains that the law, enacted 30 years ago, grants broad immunity to internet intermediaries-ISPs, social‑media platforms, blogs-preventing civil suits over user‑generated content. The author contrasts this with alternatives: full liability would force costly, impractical content reviews; a duty‑of‑care standard would create uncertainty and cause platforms to self‑censor; a notice‑and‑takedown scheme invites abuse and hinders timely removal. The piece concludes that Section 230’s immunity best preserves the ability of millions to publish freely and maintain real‑time user‑generated content.
Sources: