Otherwise Objectionable: When Congress Ridiculously Tried Merging Censorship With Freedom
from the objection! dept
Moral panics come and go, but stupid legislation is forever. At least until the Supreme Court steps in. This week on Otherwise Objectionable, my podcast series about Section 230, we talk about how the moral panic over “porn” online, including Senator James Exon’s infamous blue binder of internet porn, caused the Senate to pass a horrifying censorship bill that would have required the internet be as clean as Sesame Street.
Enter Representatives Chris Cox and Ron Wyden, who recognized that Exon’s approach wasn’t just unconstitutional — it fundamentally misunderstood how the internet worked. Instead of trying to turn every website into PBS Kids, they proposed something radical: trust users to make their own choices about what content they wanted to see, and protect the platforms that gave users those tools.
Their proposal, which would become Section 230, was based on a simple premise: the internet would work better if we empowered users rather than censors. Want to keep your kids away from adult content? Great — here are tools to do that. Want to create a family-friendly platform? Fantastic — you won’t get sued for trying. Want to build a more open platform? Also fine — you won’t get sued for that either.
This approach was such obvious common sense that it sailed through the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. But then congressional efficiency (or perhaps laziness) kicked in. Rather than reconcile the House and Senate approaches, leadership simply merged the bills together. The result? Section 230, a law designed to promote free speech and user choice, became part of the Communications Decency Act, a law designed to censor the internet into bland submission.
The supreme irony is that when the Supreme Court inevitably struck down most of the CDA as unconstitutional, Section 230 was the only part that survived. The provision that was never meant to be part of the censorship bill turned out to be its only lasting legacy. As Congress once again rushes to “protect the children” through ham-handed internet regulation, it’s worth remembering how the last moral panic resulted in terrible unconstitutional nonsense, that accidentally got merged with the very protection that makes a free and open internet possible.
Filed Under: censorship, chris cox, free speech, james exon, otherwise objectionable, responsibility, ron wyden, section 230
Comments on “Otherwise Objectionable: When Congress Ridiculously Tried Merging Censorship With Freedom”
Now’s where I’d love to hear we’re getting a sequel to section 230, so the internet will still have a future.
Maybe we won’t need the sequel though, one can hope.
Based upon what we’ve seen since Jan. 20, Congress is composed of idiots, nutcases, slime bags, and wimps, although there are a few, very few, shining stars. If they do anything this term, it will, almost certainly, be senseless, useless, and probably unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers of this country greatly overestimated the intelligence of the electorate and the dishonesty of those who seek political office.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mary Kate Kornett is a good example of section 230’s downside
Re:
You do not seem to understand 230. In a world without 230, not a single thing would have changed for her. If people passed around lies about her, she would have the exact same rights to sue them for defamation. Lawsuits against internet platforms would still fail in a non-230 world, because they would not have the requisite level of knowledge to be liable.
And, already she’s talking about suing the TV (not internet!) dude who really pumped up her story. If what he said is truly defamatory, then she has an avenue for recourse, which she’s exploring taking.
Section 230 has nothing to do with that at all.
You should really listen to the podcast, as it appears you simple do not understand Section 230.
Re: Re:
The difference is that without 230, such lawsuits would be allowed to go further than they do with 230 intact.
Re:
A good example that 230’s haters are liars without exception.
Re:
Hey Jhon Smith, what up?
Still waiting on that lawsuit you promised me bro.
It’s like that law school metaphor about a crucible and being left with nothing but good law and justice…
but a lot of laws have to go into the pot to get enough good steel to build a towering edifice of justice to stand through the ages.
Ill take the metalwork metaphor one further;
There is a tremendous amount of slag in this particular batch of laws; and I hope it doesn’t shatter the iron principles of our constitution.
Re:
Given the bipartisanship of trying to repeal section 230 and kill internet freedom, I have my doubts about strength of the constitution.
Re:
The constitution was already proven to be just a slew of words and suggestions anyone can circumvent in the interest of “national security” in 2001.
Amusing, now NCOSE is advocating for a section 230 repeal it seems.
And of course EVERY single politician will probably listen to them, because critical thinking is overrated.
Re:
Now now, calm down a little. Not everything some big-name group advocates for is going to pass just because of their name.