Last month, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two related cases exploring the interaction between anti-terrorism laws and Section 230. It remains to be seen whether the legislature or the Supreme Court will address Section 230 first, but this may be the prologue to a watershed moment for the internet and its users.
Latest in Section 230
The Fifth Circuit badly overreaches in upholding Texas’s social media moderation law, making a hash of the First Amendment in the process.
What’s the best path forward for platform transparency regulation?
FOSTA, which became law in 2018, deserves greater attention as a cautionary tale about what can go wrong with reforms of § 230.
The lawsuit alleges that Facebook gave rise to the far-right extremist boogaloo movement that led Officer Dave Patrick Underwood’s killer and his accomplice to connect.
The Supreme Court vacates the holding that the replies to Trump’s Twitter account are a public forum, and Justice Thomas shares his thoughts on platform regulation.
The notice and takedown system rejected in 1997 might be a way forward.
The power that tech platforms have over individuals can be legitimized only by rejecting the fraudulent contract of Section 230 and instituting principles of consent, reciprocity, and collective responsibility.
In a new Wall Street Journal op-ed, Philip Hamburger argues that “the government, in working through private companies, is abridging the freedom of speech.” This argument doesn’t hold water.
Biden should look to the idea of a systemic duty of care, which says that the platforms are dependent on their users’ social connections and, thus, are obliged to reduce online harms to those users.