I/O
No One Knows if the Internet’s Most Controversial Law Helps or Hurts Women
While some activists hope amending Section 230 would end revenge porn, doing so could also take away safe spaces
--
In the mid-1990s, when the internet was still relatively new, Congress passed a 26-word provision as part of the Communications Decency Act that has shaped social media and online platforms ever since.
The provision, known as Section 230, says that internet companies are not liable for their users’ content. It means that Twitter can’t be sued for users’ defamatory tweets, you can’t be sued for the comments that someone else leaves on your blog, and whatever people post to Facebook is on them, not Facebook.
For decades, this premise has been a fundamental component of how the internet is run. But in recent years, Section 230 has been under fire from those who believe it protects tech companies at the expense of their users.
One of the most common arguments for amending Section 230 is that it enables revenge porn. The staff of C.A. Goldberg, a victims’ rights law firm known for its aggressive work on behalf of the victims of revenge porn, called interpretation of the provision “so expansive, it protects websites and social media companies that allow users to upload your naked pictures without permission,” a protection which, the firm argues, encourages tech platforms to do nothing in response to revenge porn.
C.A. Goldberg isn’t the only law firm to take this stance: in a series of lawsuits in California, Georgia, Missouri, and Texas, personal injury lawyer Annie McAdams has been challenging the notion that platforms like Facebook shouldn’t be held accountable for the abuses committed by their users. In a piece about her crusade published in the New York Times, McAdams argues that the protections afforded by Section 230 are akin to making it impossible to sue a lawnmower retailer whose product causes bodily harm. While neither of C.A. Goldberg or McAdams expects to wholly overturn Section 230, both hope the government will rewrite it — or the courts will interpret in a way that feels more friendly to abuse victims.
