For the Sake of Free Speech, Keep Section 230

Conservative speech might be the first to go under the justification of increased legal risk

Letters to The WSJ. 

"Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone Jr.’s op-ed “Sunset of Section 230 Would Force Big Tech’s Hand” (May 13) fundamentally misunderstands Section 230. It doesn’t give Big Tech “unlimited immunity from legal consequences.” Platforms and users are liable for their own illegal actions. The internet isn’t lawless.

Section 230 protects platforms from being held responsible for hosting user posts. Without it, platforms would be left with three choices: Implement extensive content censorship by surveilling every post and taking down any post that could possibly lead to a lawsuit; allow all content to stay up no matter how repulsive; or prohibit users from posting at all. Any of these scenarios would devastate free speech and forever change the way we interact online.

Section 230 allows platforms to keep problematic content off their sites because it provides that platforms can moderate without risking liability for the speech they do host. By empowering platforms to remove objectionable content, Section 230 enables platforms to protect children.

It’s easy to blame Big Tech for all the harms online, but many of these problems are social, not technical. To promote safety online, we must give people stronger privacy protections (which includes more control over their online experience), not repeal a law that has fostered innovation and free speech for decades. Our leaders must back away from this dangerous proposal.

Jenna Leventoff

American Civil Liberties Union

Washington

The only remedy Reps. McMorris Rodgers and Pallone Jr. offer for online harms is to turn the plaintiffs’ bar loose on tech companies, a curious solution for Republicans who historically favor tort reform. Eradicating or curtailing Section 230 will ensure that only those companies already big and rich enough to pay legal-defense bills will survive.

The First Amendment already ensures that social-media companies don’t have to carry any content they don’t wish, but Section 230 makes it fiscally safe to carry content they might not otherwise. Changing that should worry those concerned about the removal of online conservative speech, as those sentiments might be the first to go under the justification of increased legal risk.

Those same tech giants will also, inevitably, be the ones with seats at the table crafting a new regulatory regime during the 18-month window after repeal, likely leaving nascent and yet-to-be-founded firms at a disadvantage. Today’s most successful platforms benefited greatly from the liability shield, but they would have every incentive to deny it to future competitors.

Eliminating Section 230 won’t solve the already illegal harms the authors mention, but it will kill innovation that could result in better social-media options in the future. Better to avoid unintended consequences and increase funding to law enforcement rather than lining the pockets of trial lawyers.

Jessica Melugin

Competitive Enterprise Institute"