Section 230: Rule that Shapes the Internet
2023-02-22
LRC
TXT
大字
小字
滚动
全页
1Twenty-six words were included in what is known as Section 230 of the 1996 law setting telecommunication policies in the United States.
2Those words have enabled companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to grow into the giant technology companies they are today.
3This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing challenges to the law on whether those companies are responsible for what users posted on their services.
4In Gonzalez v. Google, the justices will decide whether the family of an American college student killed in a terror attack in Paris can sue Google, which owns YouTube.
5The family claims the video service's algorithm helped extremists spread their message.
6The second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, also centers on legal responsibility.
7It involves a Jordanian citizen killed in Istanbul, Turkiye.
8The results of these cases could reshape the internet as we know it.
9Section 230 will not be easily changed.
10But if it is, online speech could be greatly changed.
11If a news organization or website falsely accuses you of harmful things, you can take legal action against the publisher for libel.
12Libel is a published false statement about someone and is a crime.
13But if someone posts a libelous statement on Facebook, you cannot sue Facebook.
14You can only sue the person who posted it.
15In this case, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.
16The law says that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
17That legal statement protects companies that can host trillions of messages from being sued by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted.
18Section 230 also permits social media services to moderate their services.
19They can remove posts that, for example, are obscene or violate the services' standards.
20The measure's history dates to the 1950s.
21At the time, bookstore owners were being held legally responsible for selling books containing "obscenity," which is not protected by the First Amendment.
22One case made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that it created a "chilling effect" to hold someone responsible for someone else's content.
23Now, lawmakers from both Republican and Democratic parties have argued that social media websites have misused that protection and should lose it.
24Some argue that the companies should have to meet requirements set by the government.
25Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University specializing in internet law.
26He said the main thing people do on the internet is to communicate with each other.
27And a lot of that communication is made possible by Section 230.
28The law says that tech companies that permit people to communicate are not responsible for the discussions, he said.
29Goldman said that if protections for services permitting people to communicate are removed "they won't allow us to talk to each other anymore."
30There are two possible results.
31Services might be more careful with content.
32For example, in 2018, a law was passed that created an exception to Section 230 for material that helps with sex work.
33The advertising service Craigslist removed its "personals" area that was taken over by those who used it for sex work.
34Another possibility is that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others could stop moderating materials on their services altogether.
35However, the unmoderated services could easily end up with a lot of harmful content.
36Any change to Section 230 is likely to have strong effects on online speech around the world.
37Goldman noted that the rest of the world is taking measures against internet companies faster than the U.S.
38 "So we're a step behind the rest of the world in terms of censoring the internet. And the question is whether we can even hold out on our own."
39I'm Jill Robbins.
1Twenty-six words were included in what is known as Section 230 of the 1996 law setting telecommunication policies in the United States. 2Those words have enabled companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to grow into the giant technology companies they are today. 3This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing challenges to the law on whether those companies are responsible for what users posted on their services. 4In Gonzalez v. Google, the justices will decide whether the family of an American college student killed in a terror attack in Paris can sue Google, which owns YouTube. The family claims the video service's algorithm helped extremists spread their message. 5The second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, also centers on legal responsibility. It involves a Jordanian citizen killed in Istanbul, Turkiye. 6The results of these cases could reshape the internet as we know it. Section 230 will not be easily changed. But if it is, online speech could be greatly changed. 7What is section 230? 8If a news organization or website falsely accuses you of harmful things, you can take legal action against the publisher for libel. Libel is a published false statement about someone and is a crime. 9But if someone posts a libelous statement on Facebook, you cannot sue Facebook. You can only sue the person who posted it. 10In this case, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. The law says that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 11That legal statement protects companies that can host trillions of messages from being sued by anyone who feels wronged by something someone else has posted. 12Section 230 also permits social media services to moderate their services. They can remove posts that, for example, are obscene or violate the services' standards. 13The measure's history dates to the 1950s. At the time, bookstore owners were being held legally responsible for selling books containing "obscenity," which is not protected by the First Amendment. One case made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that it created a "chilling effect" to hold someone responsible for someone else's content. 14Now, lawmakers from both Republican and Democratic parties have argued that social media websites have misused that protection and should lose it. Some argue that the companies should have to meet requirements set by the government. 15What happens if Section 230 goes away? 16Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clara University specializing in internet law. He said the main thing people do on the internet is to communicate with each other. And a lot of that communication is made possible by Section 230. The law says that tech companies that permit people to communicate are not responsible for the discussions, he said. 17Goldman said that if protections for services permitting people to communicate are removed "they won't allow us to talk to each other anymore." 18There are two possible results. 19Services might be more careful with content. For example, in 2018, a law was passed that created an exception to Section 230 for material that helps with sex work. The advertising service Craigslist removed its "personals" area that was taken over by those who used it for sex work. 20Another possibility is that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others could stop moderating materials on their services altogether. However, the unmoderated services could easily end up with a lot of harmful content. 21Any change to Section 230 is likely to have strong effects on online speech around the world. 22Goldman noted that the rest of the world is taking measures against internet companies faster than the U.S. "So we're a step behind the rest of the world in terms of censoring the internet. And the question is whether we can even hold out on our own." 23I'm Jill Robbins. 24Dan Novak adapted this story for VOA Learning English based on reporting by The Associated Press. 25______________________________________________________________________ 26Words in This Story 27challenge - v. to say or show that may not be true, correct, or legal 28sue - v. to use a legal process by which you try to get a court of law to force a person, company, or organization that has treated you unfairly or hurt you in some way to give you something or to do something 29algorithm - n. a set of steps that are followed in order to solve a mathematical problem or to complete a computer process 30libel - n. the act of publishing a false statement that causes people to have a bad opinion of someone 31interactive - adj. designed to respond to the actions, commands, etc., of a user 32obscene - adj. very offensive in usually a shocking way 33chilling- adj. very disturbing or frightening 34allow - v. to permit 35censor - v. a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.