Otherwise Objectionable: How The Communications Decency Act Fell Apart
from the decline-and-fall dept
Last week, we told the story of how the Communications Decency Act came to be. On this week’s episode of Otherwise Objectionable, we look at how it quickly went down in flames — except, of course, for the all-important Section 230.
Just four months after being signed into law, the CDA faced its first court challenge on free speech grounds. Online publisher Joe Shea filed a lawsuit in New York, and secured a unanimous ruling that the CDA’s restrictions infringed on the First Amendment. Around the same time, a federal court in Pennsylvania also struck down portions of the law, and soon the law was on its way to the Supreme Court.
While the ACLU argued that the law was unconstitutional, the government defended it by drawing comparisons to the regulation of public television and radio airwaves. But is it right to regulate the internet in the same manner as broadcast media, where the primary concern was “unexpected” encounters with sensitive content? As the court would recognize, no, it’s not. In June of 1997, the Supreme Court struck down the indecency parts of the CDA, leaving only one section in force: Section 230.
But of course, that wasn’t the end of the story. Critical cases, starting with Zeran v. AOL, would test and define the extent of 230 protections. A decade or so later, the rise of Facebook initiated a new era in user generated content, and a new era of importance for Section 230.
Filed Under: cda, condent moderation, first amendment, free speech, section 230, zeran
Companies: aol, facebook
Comments on “Otherwise Objectionable: How The Communications Decency Act Fell Apart”
Look at this blog post from Eric Goldmann and tell me why it’s even worth talking about this anymore: https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/04/blogiversary-what-will-this-blog-look-like-in-10-years-part-10-of-10.htm
Re:
Because unlike you, some people have decided that there’s still some good in this world and it’s worth fighting for, no matter how futile the fight may be in the end. If you want to lament the end of the world despite it not happening yet, go do it somewhere else and stop trying to make everyone else here feel as miserable as you.
Re: Re:
Even a free bonus answer. i’d say that’s a good deal, not sure why similar deals have been turned down in the past.
i can take a pretty dim view of humanity and social structures, but there is indeed good to be done, and good to be had. It ain’t free instant gratification, tho’.
Re: Re:
Let me know when you actually start this actual “fight” and have more to offer than just the usual pathetic cries of “They can’t do this! We have laws that say they can’t!” and whatever the hell this is:
https://www.npr.org/2025/02/18/nx-s1-5300155/trump-dance-performance-protest-kennedy-center-nelken-line
Re: Re: Re:
And you let me know when you want a “fight” that isn’t just the senseless killing of anyone with a red hat, mmm’kay.
Re: Re: Re:2
Because we all know everything is binary – we are either lying down and letting the conservatives win or scalp-hunting anyone thought to be related to them. Nothing in between these two things can exist.
You have more in common with their way of seeing the world that you want to admit, and that’s why you’re so angry when someone calls your bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’ve been pestered for months upon months now about my stance in re: political violence, so pardon me for not feeling up to a nuanced debate on the matter when such an approach will near-inevitably result in someone telling me I must start killing “them” before they kill “us”. I’m sick of that shit, I’m sick of the person(s) doing it, and I’m sick of the mere idea that violence will be the best and only “answer” to the “problem” of the Trump administration. If that means I get a little cranky when I see someone hinting at the idea of wanton violence for the sake of politics, I’m willing to accept that, because I’ve been cranky about being accused of wanting to die without a fight for months and fuck that noise.
You wanna have a conversation about what to do that isn’t just holding up ping-pong paddles during the State of the Union? Fine. But I’ll be done with it in the exact moment that violence is brought up as anything but a “last resort” solution. So if you’re not here to suggest a bloodletting, by all means—go ahead and start a conversation.
But if you’re here to suggest mindless lethal violence, miss me with that shit.
Re: Re: Re:4
Which is a blatant lie. You have been called to take a (non-violent) stance against bigotry, with the “them” being bigots and the “us” being everyone else, and refused by saying that bigots have the same free speech rights as everyone else, not even caring that when bigots speak freely and those in power listen, minorities’ voices are effectively silenced. Tell me, are you really the minority you claim to be, or are you just saying that so you can “stand up and be counted” the same way Amelia Baggs wanted to?
Re: Re: Re:5
My whole-ass comment history is filled with me calling out bigotry of all kinds. My stance has been pretty clear on the matter for a long time, and I’ve been clear about it every time I have the chance to bring it up. But in case you need another reminder: I denounce bigotry and intolerance in all its forms, whether it’s racism, misogyny, queerphobia (including transphobia), antisemitism, ableism, or any other form of hatred based on immutable traits (e.g., ethnic heritage) and some non-immutable traits (e.g., religious creed).
And here’s where you lose me.
Look, I get that my stance isn’t popular, but it’s the morally and ethically correct stance: Everyone, even people I hate, must have the right to speak their minds. To make a subject of discussion off limits is wrong. To make certain words wholly off limits is wrong. To deny someone the right to speak because their speech offends others is wrong. I will stand by those three sentences no matter what.
But none of that means I believe in the right of free reach.
A discussion on a given subject may not be appropriate for a given forum, and it can be barred in that specific forum without affecting anyone’s rights. Certain words (e.g., slurs) are patently offensive and are often barred from specific forums, but some forums can also ban words that are “inappropriate” for those forums without affecting anyone’s rights. And if someone is banned from a forum for violating those restrictions or for being an asshole besides, that doesn’t affect their right to go somewhere else that accepts the speech what got them banned and repeat it there. My position on the matter is about respecting people’s rights while also acknowledging that protecting those rights is a responsibility—one that is best practiced by giving people practicing those rights in bad faith the boot from a platform so people practicing them in good faith can be heard without interference.
A bigot who uses the N-word as easily as they breathe absolutely has, and should have, the right to say that word. And everyone else has, and should have, the right to ignore that bigot and kick that bigot out of places where their bigotry isn’t welcome. If holding that position makes me a bastard, then I guess I was born out of wedlock, because I’m not changing that position over some name-calling.
No amount of guilt-tripping will make me change my mind. Your “you’re not a real queer person” bullshit also won’t get the job done. Make an argument that convinces me to strip bigots of their civil rights or stop wasting my time with your attempts at emotional manipulation—I don’t care which.
Re: Re: Re:6
We should limit the reach of nazis and rightly call them out on their bullshit, but we should never become a thought police.
If we want to root out malice, it must be done with education and learning, not repression.
Re: Re: Re:5
Why should he listen to someone like you whos only action to this date has been you demanding that Stephen do something you approve of? Who the fuck gave you the authority to demand anything of anyone? Your impotent righteousness?
Fuck off!
Re: Re: Re:
For all of my pessimism, even I know that this is far from the only thing they’re doing to fight back.
Uh... Competitive Enterprise Institute?
That is a right-wing think tank.