* Press release last week from US Sen. Dick Durbin…
This week, Durbin will join U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to introduce a bill that would sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in two years. Section 230—and the legal immunity it provides to Big Tech—has been on the books since 1996—long before social media became a part of our daily lives. To the extent this protection was ever needed, its usefulness has long since passed.
The full statute he wants to eliminate is here.
* From a few years ago, when President Trump vetoed a Defense Department appropriations bill because it did not repeal Section 230…
Section 230 has two key provisions. One states that an online service provider can’t be treated as the publisher of content created by a third party. The second provision says that a provider can’t be held liable for taking down content it “considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” The inclusion of “otherwise objectionable” in this list gives online platforms essentially bulletproof protection against lawsuits for removing third-party content.
Trump’s focus on Section 230 seems to be driven by anger that online platforms—especially Twitter—have labeled or removed his posts when they violate their policies. In May, Twitter slapped a warning label on a Trump tweet exaggerating the risks of voter fraud. Soon afterward, Trump signed an executive order asking the FCC to reinterpret Section 230. He’s been tweeting angrily about the law ever since.
* More background from the Electronic Frontier Foundation…
For more than 25 years, Section 230 has protected us all: small blogs and websites, big platforms, and individual users.
The free and open internet as we know it couldn’t exist without Section 230. Important court rulings on Section 230 have held that users and services cannot be sued for forwarding email, hosting online reviews, or sharing photos or videos that others find objectionable. It also helps to quickly resolve lawsuits cases that have no legal basis.
Congress knew that the sheer volume of the growing Internet would make it impossible for services to review every users’ speech. When Section 230 was passed in 1996, about 40 million people used the Internet worldwide. By 2019, more than 4 billion people were online, with 3.5 billion of them using social media platforms. In 1996, there were fewer than 300,000 websites; by 2017, there were more than 1.7 billion.
Without Section 230’s protections, many online intermediaries would intensively filter and censor user speech, while others may simply not host user content at all. This legal and policy framework allows countless niche websites, as well as big platforms like Amazon and Yelp to host user reviews. It allows users to share photos and videos on big platforms like Facebook and on the smallest blogs. It allows users to share speech and opinions everywhere, from vast conversational forums like Twitter and Discord, to the comment sections of the smallest newspapers and blogs.
* Why Durbin’s idea is so clueless…
The dumbest part: removing Section 230 would actually entrench Big Tech’s power, not diminish it. The giants would survive just fine — most cases against them would still fail on First Amendment grounds. But defending speech under the First Amendment is far more complex and expensive than Section 230’s straightforward protections. Meta, Google, and their ilk have armies of lawyers to handle this. Everyone else? Not so much.
This explains why Mark Zuckerberg has been practically begging Congress to eliminate Section 230. It’s not because he suddenly developed a burning passion for content moderation reform. It’s because he’s looked at the math and realized: “Hey, we can afford buildings full of lawyers. Our competitors can’t.” When Zuckerberg advocates for eliminating Section 230, he’s not confessing his sins — he’s pitching his business plan.
Without Section 230 “Big Tech” would be fine. First of all, in nearly all cases that are filed against websites would still lose, because almost all of these decisions are protected by the First Amendment. But — and this is the important part — having to defend it under the First Amendment is way more expensive. And takes way longer. Which means that smaller defendants, especially, will likely cave in to threats.
The end result? Big Tech gets bigger, smaller platforms disappear, and the “monopolies” that Durbin claims to be fighting become actual monopolies — now with congressional approval! It’s like trying to punish Standard Oil by making it illegal for anyone except Standard Oil to sell kerosene.
Durbin’s claim that Section 230’s “usefulness has long since passed” isn’t just wrong — it’s dangerous. The law is more vital now than ever, as demonstrated by countless cases where it’s protected essential online discourse. At a moment when we desperately need more venues for protected speech and democratic dialogue, Durbin is proposing to demolish the very framework that makes such dialogue possible.
The consequences would be predictable and devastating: a cascade of frivolous lawsuits designed to silence critics and suppress inconvenient truths. Without Section 230’s efficient dismissal process, even completely baseless legal threats become effective censorship tools. Think about it: if you’re running a small community forum and someone threatens to sue you because they don’t like a user’s post about their business, what are you going to do? Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending your First Amendment rights, or just take down the post? This isn’t theoretical — it’s basic economics.
The end result is that it becomes that much easier to suppress dissent.
No Section 230 means no comments, no live news feeds and very likely no CapitolFax.com at all, while big tech just hires a few more lawyers.
Nice job, Dick.
- fs - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 10:37 am:
Big Tech, like water, will find a way around regulations if 230 is repealed.
Small blogs like this one with actual news, and the occasional brilliant double entendre comments, will be the ones that suffer. Free speech isn’t always pretty, but it is vital.
- Keyrock - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 10:40 am:
“Clueless” is the best description of Sen. Durbin these days.
He was a fine senator, but he no longer can meet our current needs,
I trust he will not run for reelection. I hope that if he’s even thinking about running, a strong potential candidate is preparing to primary him.
- Steve - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 10:42 am:
-removing Section 230 would actually entrench Big Tech’s power, not diminish it-
This is the history of a lot regulation in the United States. Big firms in an industry lobby politicians to erect barriers to entry in the name of safety and the public interest. The large firms can afford regulations and the legal bill.
- Gravitas - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 10:44 am:
The moderation at this blog would probably avoid the blog being threatened with a shut down.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 10:48 am:
I might just quit the internet then, as this blog and Sox Machine are almost the only things on it I actually find useful.
- RNUG - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 10:58 am:
I can attest to the cost of defending actions based on internet postings. Even with volunteer labor doing a lot of the research that paralegals would normally perform and an attorney doing the work pretty much pro bono, the costs quickly pile up … and the case I have personal experience with in Federal Court was pretty much an open and shut slam dunk.
Free speech, if you have to defend it, isn’t free.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 11:05 am:
===The moderation at this blog would probably avoid ===
Not if a deleted commenter sued.
- AlfondoGonz - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 11:05 am:
“U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Josh Hawley (R-MO), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).”
I can’t say I’m thrilled with our senior senator introducing bad legislation alongside bad-faith republicans.
- NIU Grad - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 11:27 am:
It must have been so many of us calling on him to retire in the comments. Oops.
- New Day - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 11:35 am:
I’m not surprised by Dick since as Keyrock noted above clueless is an apt description. But I am surprised at Whitehouse and Klobuchar who are very smart, capable legislators who should know better.
- Rahm's Parking Meter - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 11:40 am:
It is time for Sen. Durbin to retire…
The world is passing him by.
- sewer thoughts - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 11:49 am:
We need someone who can make a 40 foot dive into a tub of water.
- BE - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 11:53 am:
Red state AGs have already said that if this passes, they will use it to take down any websites that are pro-LGBT or pro-abortion or give positive or helpful advice toward either of those topics.
- Honeybear - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 11:55 am:
This is absolutely horrific and such a threat to what I think is one of the greatest assets in the state. Capfax is a gold standard and I so appreciate it. And I’m sorry that I’ve probably gotten you in trouble before.
- Formerly Unemployed - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:03 pm:
Seriously? Of all the things happening in this country right now, this is what Durbin cares about? I’m heartbroken, and also super angry.
- Arsenal - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:03 pm:
==You “moderate” any comments you do not like by deleting them in the name of civility.==
Can I come to your house and say anything I want?
- NotRich - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:13 pm:
One word: RAJA
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:15 pm:
I thought Durban’s announcement on election would have come by now. I think the longer he waits the more likely he will run again
So it will be interesting to see if anyone has the nerve to challenge him. I think he is vulnerable in primary not in general
- Occasionally Moderated - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:18 pm:
== I think the longer he waits the more likely he will run again.==
A strategy perhaps?
- TJ - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:28 pm:
Durbin is an out of touch and well past his prime politician. He absolutely needs to not run for reelection, and if he does it’s clearly for self-aggrandizement only and not even slightly connected to any kind of wanting to help people.
- H-W - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:28 pm:
=== very likely no CapitolFax.com at all ===
I am not sure why the absence of the existing law protects, in ways that its absence would not protect. You note above the a deleted commenter might sue, and I get the idea that you cannot afford to entertain one, much less several lawsuits. I do get that.
But is it also possible that in the absence of Section 230, those deleted commenter still do not have a legal right to use your platform to express their views? Freedom of Speech is not about the freedom to speak. It is about protection from Government restrictions, and these restrictions have been allowed to grow over the past few decades (e.g., the establishment of free speech “zones” on or near government property).
I can imagine the worst scenario, but I can also imagine counter suits against those who sue, falsely claiming an entitlement to be heard anywhere they wish to speak.
- H-W - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:29 pm:
PS - Sorry for the grammar.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:31 pm:
===I think the longer he waits the more===
He’s told at least some people he’ll make it public in March. We’ll see. Could be later.
Also, to the deleted commenter, I don’t market the subscription service to anyone and I don’t give out free subscriptions to governments. That would be stupid. Either way, not my problem and has nothing to do with the content on the free blog, which has comments and is funded with advertising from the private sector.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:33 pm:
===But is it also possible that in the absence of Section 230, those deleted commenter still do not have a legal right to use your platform to express their views? ===
They likely don’t, but who the heck knows? Could depend on the judge.
And, either way, lawyers are not cheap. This would kill the blog as we know it. Period. End of story. I’m not putting my livelihood at risk over a buncha jerks who could hire a certain notorious attorney to go after me for no real reason other than that they can.
So, the answer is, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:34 pm:
===but I can also imagine counter suits against those who sue===
Very difficult and likely costly.
Again, you do not know what you’re talking about.
- OneMan - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:36 pm:
Good golly, is this a bad idea. The fact that he agrees with Hawley on this should be enough indication.
- Excitable Boy - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:39 pm:
In these trying times it’s great to see our esteemed senator standing proudly next to noted statesman Josh Hawley to deliver Donald Trump one of his pet projects. Retire already.
- Honeybear - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 12:52 pm:
It’s kinda hitting me that Capfax was something I was counting on to help survive this period. Its demise could be so huge to me. I know I haven’t participated as much in the past few years but that was changing to where I need to get back on the field.
Really really sorry Rich
- TheInvisibleMan - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 1:07 pm:
—
Durbin’s claim that Section 230’s “usefulness has long since passed”
—
Section 230 was implemented in 1996.
Dick Durbin was first elected to the Senate in 1997.
Dick and I almost agree. There’s just one minor difference in what we agree about.
The usefulness of one of these has absolutely long since passed.
- Ebenezer - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 1:24 pm:
Rich knows his business.
Section 230 is what allows Rich to moderate the comments. Moderating the comments is what keeps this place both lively and reasonably constructive. Rich can use his judgement to enforce the boundaries without fear of lawsuits.
My limited understanding is that removing 230 makes Capitolfax legally responsible for all the content on the site if it does any content moderation at all.
A site that only has words Rich is prepared to defend in court is not very interesting.
Section 230 allows site owners allow user posts while policing content outside of their standards. That has consequences, because their standards are not my standards.
But its less bad than anything else I’ve heard of.
- Politiconsternation - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 1:26 pm:
“Durban’s announcement on election would have come by now” [sic]
He strikes me as someone who feels like he deserves the right to leave on his own terms, e.g. the gun jumping is having an adverse effect on the finality everyone seems to want.
- Give Us Barabbas - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 1:49 pm:
I think maybe Durbin thinks that if we end 230, somehow that will shut down the worst things about internet usage; illegal/ immoral material, hate speech, etc. but this is going after a butterfly with a shotgun. 230 should stay, for the reasons already given. But what more can we do about the poison on line?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 1:55 pm:
===Rich gets paid by the State of Illinois. I am a taxpayer===
Plenty of businesses are paid by the state for goods and services. You are a moron.
- Eire17 - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 1:57 pm:
Is there a rotary phone mandate in there? I don’t even necessarily about whether it’s a D or R. Time for new energy and better ideas.
- @misterjayem - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 2:08 pm:
Richard Durbin is wholly unsuited for these times.
A stone-ax in a post-industrial world.
– MrJM
- Center Drift - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 2:11 pm:
Please Sen. Durbin, retire before your brain does. Go out in whatever dignity you still have.
- Amalia - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 2:44 pm:
what the actual what????, Senator Durbin. Protect free speech.
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 2:50 pm:
…and then they came for Capitol Fax.
Tyranny spares only the tyrant.
- Shytown - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 3:17 pm:
This is insane. And I’m all for bipartisanship, but if you stand side-by-side with Josh Hawley on anything, it’s time for you to go. Dumb move Senator.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 3:29 pm:
Durbin’s time was up 10 years ago. His involvement with this bill is embarrassing.
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 3:37 pm:
Durbins’ involvement with this bill is sinister.
- ArchPundit - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 3:46 pm:
The issue isn’t 230, but the algorithms. It’s an interesting question whether algorithms used by social media would qualify as speech, but limiting the algorithm’s or simply outlawing them would go a long way to reducing the worst problems with social media. The algorithms encourage the addictive behavior not unlike what we are seeing with online gambling and needs to be regulated. That avoids the 230 issue of allowing people to communicate, but not allow an algorithm to make such participation subject to manipulation.
- Dotnonymous x - Monday, Feb 24, 25 @ 7:31 pm:
None of these moves stand alone…they are all Project 2025…the goal was always total…as in totalitarian control of a complict media…but you already knew that.
America, we hardly knew ye?…it makes me wonder…and wonder more.
- ItsJustMe - Tuesday, Feb 25, 25 @ 12:03 am:
Orson Welles: I have all the equipment to be a politician. Total shamelessness.
Durbin lost my respect when he was going to go along with Obama’s and Boehner’s Grand bargain to cut Social Security and Medicare.
He’s just another politician.