In 1995 Nebraska Senator James Exon (he hadn't lost a single Democratic-run election) presented a blue envelope from the floor of the US Senate. It contained a few images he had found on the world's new 'game' called the Internet 'of the harshest and most perverse type of pornography '. He had 'taken out' several copies to distribute to his colleagues 'who were shocked to see the images and the contamination of the internet '. This was the way he had to explain what dangerous things were a click away from the children of the place - he emphasized that yes, that's how low society had 'fallen'. What he asked for was 'for the government to clean up the Internet ' and make indecent material immediately illegal. As was pornography. Not only did he fail to achieve his goal, but he allowed the creation of an 'industry' whose value has exceeded one trillion dollars.
To help, he had something to propose:an amendment to telecommunications - and communications in general - legislation, which he called the 'Decency Act'. Let me remind somewhere here that in the 90s we were introduced to the World Wide Web. Few understood what it was about. Even fewer "saw" how it would turn out.
Two members of Congress, Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden, expressed the view that everyone's life would be simpler if those who provided the Internet took on the task of 'cleaning' it of processions. But there was one basic, legal problem:providers were prohibited by law from managing internet content. If they attempted the slightest thing, lawsuits would follow.
At the same time there was a New York court judgment (issued on 5/24/1995) in which a company (Prodigy Service Co.) was found liable for defamation posted by a user (codenamed Money Talk) . Investment bank Stratton Oakmont Inc was the one that prosecuted the case and was vindicated, winning $200,000,000. By the way, the court explained that it was Prodigy Service Co.'s 'fault', because it could control the content if a) it had guidelines on what content users were allowed to post, b) if it checked for any infringement and imposed penalties, and c) if it had build a program capable of recognizing and removing 'offensive' language. All this would be done along the way.
In the first phase, the providers found themselves with two options available:either undertake the 'clean-up' and risk lawsuits, or stop dealing (completely), so as not to face legal consequences. Cox took a different view. “It's helpful to encourage these people to do everything possible for us 'customers' to control what 'gets' onto the Internet and ultimately, what our children see ". Together with Wyden they drafted Section 230. It became known as 'the twenty-six words that created the Internet '.
It had as its cornerstone the provision of immunity from liability to providers and users of an 'interactive computer service' that published information provided by 'third' users. To date, it states that 'no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider '.
When they presented him they knew apotheosis. Today, he is the one who 'unites' the Republicans with the Democrats, as both demand change. Be patient and I'll tell you why. For now, let me tell you that as the members of Congress drafted what they thought could be a solution, they allowed the providers to monitor the content, without being legally responsible for what was 'uploaded' to the internet. The whole concept was based on the good will of Internet companies to 'police' everything that concerned them. To this day, they defend it.
As you can hear him in a Vox video, Wyden explained how "we're calling our proposition 'the sword and the shield.' frivolous lawsuits” . On 8/2/1996 their idea was voted to amend the telecommunications law.
From there the rulers wanted to continue it with a ban on access to pornographic material. They voted for her too. But there was an insurmountable problem:the First Amendment to the US Constitution which prohibits the government from making laws (and thus interfering) with freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and protest against the state. It also prohibits the adoption of an official religion.
Pornographic material was not controlled, but Section 230 was retained and created a huge 'industry'. Without Section 230 there would be no social media or Wikipedia, at least in its current form, if they had to fight court battles over what we post.
The coin had, of course, another side that was revealed early on. In 1995 an anonymous 'user' was appearing on AOL (America Online) as Kenneth Zaran, who also had his phone number for anyone who wanted to buy his T-shirts glorifying the Oklahoma City bombing - it had taken place on 19 /4 of that year. The name and phone number were there. But the 'user' was not the real Zaran, who received countless threatening phone calls, but could not take the eavesdropper and 'user' of his data to court. He pleaded with AOL to 'take down' his details, which they did, before they resurfaced and Zaran went to court to save him. He discovered that he did not have this right, because of Section 230.
After the advent of social networking the situation became much worse, with anyone able to harm competitors, work or former relationships by pretending to be someone else and providing information that can endanger our 'target'. This... at best. At worst, people die through various 'ways' - from 'toys' that shouldn't exist, to allowing terrorists to 'promote' their work.
Lawyers who have tried to change the bad wording (and failed), explain that the immunity the law gives to Internet companies has made some lazy and irresponsible. They clarify that Section 230 does not protect freedom of speech, but the 'industry' - which today is worth more than 1 trillion dollars - and that whoever is harmed by a person or company, must have the right to appeal to the courts. To have access to them - to justice.
Today, all US governors have a problem with Section 230, but not all are the same
Democrats believe, today, that companies like Facebook should increase their policing 'because they promote fake news, knowing it to be fake', Joe Biden has said. Republicans are focusing on another problem:censorship of conservative views. So they are asking for less policing.
Donald Trump has made the disappearance of Section 230 his final goal before leaving the White House. He had explained that he would veto the approval of annual defense spending if the law "protecting social media" was not repealed. On December 8, the House approved the spending, with a majority that made Trump forget about the veto.
The average American is asking for companies to be more accountable for their content, with lawmakers responding that 'if one thing changes, more will likely follow and eventually freedom of speech will be compromised'. Obviously there is a solution. However, it will take a lot of work and mutual concessions to finally serve the inhabitants of this planet and their right to expression, knowing however that every illegal act has its consequence. Something that happens in Greece - where you can take anyone who belittles you, slanders you, hurts you to court. And be justified.