As Section 230 Sunsets, Congress May Be Poised to Disrupt the Internet as We Know It

Ed Brzytwa is VP of international trade at the Consumer Technology Association (CTA).

Leaders in the US House of Representatives are debating a proposal that would dramatically limit speech online. Backed by two powerful House leaders, the “Communications Decency Act Sunset Section 230 Legislative Proposal” would eliminate the protections given to Internet platform providers under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This legislation would deal a critical blow to the quintessentially American tradition of free speech and the Internet as we know and love it.

As hearing sponsors Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone Jr. explained in a recent speech. Wall Street Journal op-ed, the purpose of Section 230 was to “help people and businesses connect, innovate, and share information” by establishing the common-sense principle that responsibility for Internet speech rests with the speaker. Section 230 also ensures that internet platforms can remove offensive or inappropriate speech without fear of liability. As lawmakers acknowledge, it “helped transition the Internet from the age of ‘you’ve got the mail’ to today’s global communications and commerce nexus.”

Congress did the right thing in 1996 when it cleared the way for the commercial Internet to grow with Section 230, precisely so that American innovators could create new services for Americans, by Americans. Now, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from both parties are rushing to pass legislation that would remove the protection afforded by the “26 words that created the Internet.”

We no longer live in an age where news is broadcast by a limited number of television and cable channels. Social media and free online exchanges are a growing source of information for millions of Americans, and Section 230 helps keep those platforms vibrant, engaging, and useful.

Eliminating Section 230 would be a gift from Congress to trial lawyers eager to make a quick buck. In fact, without these protections, anyone can harass or sue website owners for information posted or comments made by individual users. This would add a potentially crippling “litigation tax” to the cost of doing business for any site that allows public comments—and jeopardize the future of your favorite online services and thousands of other social media sites.

While proponents of this legislation like to portray it as a counter to Big Tech, the reality is that Section 230 protects innovators of all sizes, including small businesses and startups. He advocates for church bulletin boards, online newsletters, and microblogging. Moreover, it protects our free speech. If Section 230 is destroyed or weakened, it will leave behind a grim Internet — either an oversanitized version or a free-for-all. In short, the Section 230 sunset will chill the free speech allowed by our dynamic internet innovation ecosystem and eliminate tools and features Americans love and rely on, making the online experience worse for all.

Furthermore, claims that Section 230 hinders efforts to stop child sex, drug trafficking, and other online crimes ignore the fact that these actions are already prosecuted. If something is illegal in real life, it is illegal online.

Section 230 allows us to build an economic miracle, and now some in Congress would ask us to burn it down. To blow up this legal framework would be to shoot ourselves in the foot—and give America’s economic rivals a tremendous gift.

As technology moves forward, it’s true that Congress has many complex issues to deal with, from AI to algorithmic accountability. As it grapples with these issues, the one thing Congress must not do is remove the legal tent pole that supports US innovation. This is the time for anyone and everyone who uses and relies on Internet platforms to make their voices heard (thanks to Section 230)—and tell Congress “no thanks” for a proposal that would mean a future of gloomy and limited to the Internet.