Our Online Speech Rights Are Under Threat
Congress on Wednesday will examine a little-known law that has made the internet the space for self-expression and connection that it is today. The law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), is one of the most speech protective laws Congress has ever enacted and it is now under threat.
The internet today provides us an indispensable platform to communicate freely with others who might otherwise be beyond reach. One person with an idea or a desire to create change can reach millions. April Reign coined the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite in 2015 and spawned an online movement drawing attention to the lack of representation of people of color in the nominated films.
Like Reign, people around the world are leveraging the internet to fight back against anything from systemic racism to the tactics of oppressive regimes. And the benefits can be personal too — new parents needing advice on a stroller can turn to online parent message boards, home gardeners seeking lawn care tips can turn to DIY gardening blogs, and more.
This is possible because so many online forums enable speakers to communicate freely on their platforms. Wikipedia provides a free online encyclopedia in scores of languages, thanks to volunteers around the world. Yelp lets us give recommendations on anything from restaurants to nail salons. Consumer watchdog sites encourage the public to submit reports of corporate malfeasance. Environmental activists at sites like Frack Check WV ask citizens to submit horror stories about fracking in their communities. The Bed Bug Registry asks users to report bed bug infestations. And then, of course, there are Facebook and Twitter.
CDA 230 makes communication on these platforms possible by assuring online platforms that they generally won’t be liable for user-generated content. Yelp can't be held legally responsible every time one of its users posts a potentially false negative review. The Bed Bug Registry doesn't have to visit every hotel with a magnifying glass to confirm the public reports. And Facebook can offer a forum for billions of users to share their thoughts, pictures, memes, and videos freely without having to approve every post before it goes up.
If it weren’t for CDA 230, no website owner would permit public posts knowing that the site could be investigated, shut down, sued, or charged with a felony over one user’s speech. Avoiding legal risk would require even the smallest blog to hire an army of lawyers to assess in real-time all content created and uploaded by users. It’s unaffordable. Instead, sites would avoid legal liability by simply refusing to host user-generated content at all.
Of course, users make mistakes. We get facts wrong. We can be terrible to one another in ways that break the law, offend, or hurt. Bad actors can — and do — abuse the internet for nefarious and destructive purposes. But there are already safeguards in place to address harmful content not protected under the First Amendment, and Section 230 does not shield bad actors or lawbreakers. If you use Facebook to harass someone (please, don’t do that), you remain responsible for those actions.
CDA 230 also doesn’t stop online platforms from trying to cultivate orderly, pleasant, and useful sites. While the biggest social media companies, responsible for hosting the speech of billions, should resist calls to censor lawful speech, CDA 230 allows sites to delete abusive accounts, remove content that violates the site’s terms of service, or refuse to carry pornography without risking liability for the speech that they do host.
Despite these safeguards, the obvious good CDA 230 has done in creating a free, vibrant forum for speech in the modern era, and the clear harm that would result for the speech of billions should it no longer exist, some lawmakers are considering rolling the law’s protections back in ways that are poorly informed and even dangerous. One lawmaker has introduced a bill that would require a federal agency to decide whether a platform complies with a “political neutrality” requirement as a precondition for immunity. Others have proposed revoking platforms’ immunity when moderating “objectionable” content while retaining immunity for moderating “unlawful content” in good faith.
Setting aside the obvious constitutional problems with a government entity judging the political content of speech, or dictating the censorship decisions of online platforms, these proposals would make it far less palatable for online services to host others’ speech at all. If enacted, the internet’s marketplace of ideas — and our freedom to communicate online — would suffer.
The ACLU has continued to fight for Section 230 to protect people’s ability to create and communicate online. We have encouraged courts to interpret the law’s immunity provisions to enable as much free expression online as possible under U.S. law. We will remain vigilant in ensuring that the internet remains a place for self-expression and creation for all. We urge Members of Congress as they examine CDA 230’s role in the free expression to do the same.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.