About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (June 6, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govzyw0001 and id is 1 raw text is: A ongressional _______ SResearch Service informing the Ieg~stative debate since 1914 Liability for Content Hosts: An Overview of the Communication Decency Act's Section 230 June 6, 2019 Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), broadly protects online service providers like social media companies from being held liable for transmitting or taking down user-generated content. In part because of this broad immunity, social media platforms and other online content hosts have largely operated without outside regulation, resulting in a mostly self-policing industry. However, while the immunity created by Section 230 is significant, it is not absolute. For example, courts have said that if a service provider passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties, Section 230 immunity will apply; but if the service provider helps to develop the problematic content, it may be subject to liability. Commentators and regulators have questioned in recent years whether Section 230 goes too far in immunizing service providers. In 2018, Congress created a new exception to Section 230 in the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, commonly known as FOSTA. Post-FOSTA, Section 230 immunity will not apply to bar claims alleging violations of certain sex trafficking laws. Some have argued that Congress should further narrow Section 230 immunity-or even repeal it entirely. This Sidebar provides background information on Section 230, reviewing its history, text, and interpretation in the courts. Legislative History Section 230 was enacted in early 1996, in the CDA's Section 509, titled Online Family Empowerment. In part, this provision responded to a 1995 decision issued by a New York state trial court: Stratton- Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. The plaintiffs in that case were an investment banking firm. The firm alleged that Prodigy, an early online service provider, had published a libelous statement that unlawfully accused the firm of committing fraud. Prodigy itself did not write the allegedly defamatory message, but it hosted the message boards where a user posted the statement. The New York court concluded that the company was nonetheless a publisher of the alleged libel and therefore subject to liability. The court emphasized that Prodigy exercised editorial control over the content posted on its site, actively controlling the content of its message boards through both an automatic software screening program and through Board Leaders who removed messages that violated Prodigy's guidelines. Section 230 sought to abrogate Stratton-Oakmont. One of the sponsors of the Online Family Empowerment provision, Representative Chris Cox, argued on the floor of the House that the ruling Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10306 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most