A robust public debate is currently underway about the responsibility of online platforms. We have long called for this discussion, but only recently has it been seriously taken up by legislators and the public. The debate begins with a basic question: should platforms should be responsible for user-generated content? If so, under what circumstances? What exactly would such responsibility look like? Under consideration is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a provision originally designed to encourage tech companies to clean up “offensive” online content. The public discourse around Section 230, however, is riddled with misconceptions. As an initial matter, many people who opine about the law are unfamiliar with its history, text, and application. This lack of knowledge impairs thoughtful evaluation of the law’s goals and how well they have been achieved. Accordingly, Part I of this Article sets the stage with a description of Section 230—its legislative history and purpose, its interpretation in the courts, and the problems that current judicial interpretation raises. A second, and related, major source of misunderstanding is the conflation of Section 230 and the First Amendment. Part II details how this conflation distorts discussion in three ways: it assumes all Internet activity is protected speech; it treats private actors as though they were government actors; and it presumes that regulation will inevitably result in less speech. These distortions must be addressed in order to pave the way for clear-eyed policy reform. Part III offers potential solutions to help Section 230 achieve its legitimate goals.
Liberalism is back on its heels, pushed there by political movements in the United States and Europe and by the critiques of legal scholars and...
We live in a golden age of student surveillance. Some surveillance is old school: video cameras, school resource officers, and tip lines. Old-school...
A resilience agenda is an essential part of protecting national security in a digital age. Digital technologies impact nearly all aspects of everyday...
Cyber stalking involves repeated, often relentless targeting of someone with abuse. Death and rape threats may be part of a perpetrator’s playbook...
Fifty years ago, federal and state lawmakers called for the regulation of a criminal justice “databank” connecting federal, state, and local agencies...
In the last few years, the Supreme Court has upended its doctrine of religious freedom under the First Amendment. The Court has explicitly rejected...
Large language models (LLMs) now perform extremely well on many natural language processing tasks. Their ability to convert legal texts to data may...
This chapter provides an overview of computational text analysis techniques used to study judicial behavior and decision-making. As legal texts become...
Generative AI is already beginning to alter legal practice. If optimistic forecasts prove warranted, how might this technology transform judicial...
Working hand-in-hand with the private sector, largely in a regulatory vacuum, policing agencies at the federal, state, and local level are acquiring...
This article argues that the fact that an action will compound a prior injustice counts as a reason against doing the action. I call this reason The...
The demise of Roe v. Wade has raised a host of religious liberty questions that were submerged prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v...
Looking for a federal law to be declared unconstitutional? Religion may well be your best bet -- and that's true regardless of how "real" your...