Internet Regulation vs. Freedom of Speech: A Cyberlaw Case Study of Section 230

Hailed as a savior of free speech while concurrently facing harsh criticism as an immunity shield for scandalous behavior and big tech, there is no denying the notoriety of Section 230. Big tech companies claim the statute is an essential building block of progress and allows for a free internet. Contrarily, both democrats and republicans want it reformed or revoked altogether yet disagree about why or how. Referencing Twitter tagging his tweets as misinformation, former President Donald Trump tweeted on various occasions about the need to repeal or revoke Section 230 — at one point claiming Twitter was “out of control.” Meanwhile, on the other side of the presidential trail, Joe Biden also called for the revocation of Section 230. Biden’s reasoning contrasted directly with Trump’s, he argued that social media ought to be held responsible when it assists users in spreading things that are not true. Trump essentially argued social media companies ought not regulate user content, whereas Biden argued they ought to regulate content more. But in both cases Section 230 was to blame. Arguments against 230 often fail to consider how they depend on the very protections also offered by the clause. This understandably spurs confusion around the topic. Yet, in a polarized society, this kind of dichotomy is all too familiar. Nonetheless, the peculiarity and prevalence of the rhetoric regarding Section 230 warrants analysis. We must not let the essential protections of the statute be victim to the whims and chaos of current political discourse. Effective and meaningful reform of Section 230, if necessary, would require clarity over misconceptions and half-truths.