Sec. 230 Debate Obscures Real Concerns

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act continues to play a surprisingly large role in our political discourse, given its status as the last remaining vestige of a quarter-century-old law that was largely struck down by the courts long ago. The immunity shield the law grants to online platforms has been implicated in issues as broad-ranging as Twitter’s decision to ban former President Trump to whether Instagram exacerbates eating disorders among teens.
 
But while much of the Section 230 discussion from both the political left and the political right misses the mark, and many of the reform proposals put forward to address their concerns are incompatible with the First Amendment, that doesn't mean that Section 230 is sacrosanct, or that it's working perfectly.

There are real harms and illegal behavior on the internet. Defenders of the Section 230 status quo argue that addressing these by imposing any form of liability on platforms would squelch free speech online. But not all speech is high-value speech, and not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment does not, for example, prevent the suppression of illegal content like child pornography, nor does it protect fraud, perjury, true threats, or incitement to violence.