FOSI Briefs the Hill: SCOTUS Tackles Section 230
Overview
The full webinar discussion can be viewed on FOSI’s YouTube channel, linked here.
On February 21 and 22, the Supreme Court heard two cases that have the power to drastically change some of the apps and platforms we use every day. In Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, the Justices examined whether or not online platforms can be held liable for decisions made by algorithms and content recommendation systems that are core to the function of their products. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has provided relative immunity to platforms for decades, stating that online platforms cannot be held liable for content that users write or post on their sites and apps. These two cases will test how far Section 230 protections extend, and if justices will differentiate between users’ online posts and platform design features that amplify or minimize the spread of content.
This conversation included a legislative history of Section 230 and overview of the two current cases, an explanation of related court cases that focus on online speech, content moderation, and product design, and the role of Congress in amending Section 230. Panelists also responded to audience questions about a safety by design approach to product development, the existing limitations of Section 230 and when it does not apply, and how the statute impacts businesses that do not primarily rely on user generated content.
Featured speakers included:
- Keith Chu, Office of Senator Ron Wyden
- Jennifer Huddleston, CATO Institute
- Caitlin Vogus, Center for Democracy & Technology
- Andrew Zack, FOSI (Moderator)
Stephen Balkam, FOSI’s Founder and CEO, opened the discussion.
Speakers
Jennifer Huddleston
Jennifer Huddleston is a technology policy research fellow at the Cato Institute. Her research focuses on the intersection of emerging technology and law with a particular interest in the interactions between technology and the administrative state. Huddleston's work covers topics including antitrust, online content moderation, data privacy, and the benefits of technology and innovation. Her work has appeared in USA Today, National Review, the Chicago Tribune, Slate, RealClearPolicy, and U.S. News and World Report. She has published in law journals including the Berkeley Technology Law Journal, George Mason Law Review, Oklahoma Law Review, and Colorado Technology Law Journal. Huddleston has a JD from the University of Alabama School of Law and a BA in political science from Wellesley College.
Caitlin Vogus
Caitlin Vogus is the Deputy Director of CDT's Free Expression Project, which works to promote law and policy that support Internet users' free expression rights in the United States and around the world. Caitlin's work addresses online speech and the First Amendment, Section 230 and global intermediary liability regimes, and content moderation. Caitlin also focuses on technology company transparency, with a particular emphasis on researchers' access to data held by hosts of user-generated content.
Andrew Zack
Andrew Zack is the Policy Manager for the Family Online Safety Institute, supporting policy and research work relating to online safety issues, laws, and regulations.