Section 230

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 contains two key provisions. Section 230(c)(1) says that providers and users of an "interactive computer service" are not treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another, which generally prevents lawsuits against platforms for what users post. Section 230(c)(2) protects them from liability for good-faith actions to restrict access to material they consider "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."

The law was passed in response to cases that had treated online services that moderated content as publishers liable for it, and it is credited by supporters with allowing websites, forums and social media to grow.

The law draws criticism from both sides. Many conservatives argue that platforms use their moderation power to suppress conservative speech, a claim related to deplatforming and shadow banning, and that they should lose protection if they are not neutral. Many liberals argue that platforms do too little about harmful content such as misinformation and harassment. Courts have so far kept the law largely intact, and the Supreme Court, in Gonzalez v. Google (2023), declined to narrow it. State laws on moderation, tested in Moody v. NetChoice (2024), raise First Amendment questions about compelled speech.