Introduction
Legislative acts and amendments adopted at the federal level can be of high importance not only due to streamlining legal aspects but also in view of the significance of specific topics raised. The conditions of liability for copyright infringement and appropriation of both material and digital developments are an urgent issue in the system of modern law, where the preservation of intellectual property plays a large role.
Nevertheless, well-informed decisions can simplify the procedures for interaction among content authors and third parties and, at the same time, determine clear responsibility for any legislative violations. As an example of such an activity, the Communications Decency Act signed in 1996 will be reviewed and, in particular, its Section 230 that Kosseff (2019) defines as an important initiative in his book The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet.
The issues addressed by the author concern not only the impact of this legislation on the regulation of relations among content authors and third parties but also other topics, for instance, the role of Section 230 in the political context, ethical aspects of this initiative, and other nuances (Kosseff, 2019). From the standpoint of freedom of speech, which largely determines the content of the First Amendment, this legal initiative has become a weighty argument in defense of personal wills and opinions regarding any issues not associated with a direct violation of the law.
Therefore, Section 230 is one of the most crucial parts of the legislation governing individuals’ interaction and communication aspects on the Internet, and reviewing the book by Kosseff (2019) may help determine the key impacts of this timely initiative on user activity in an online environment and trade-partnership relationships in general.
Legal Significance of Section 230
Resolving the issues of interaction on the Internet was an important task in the era of the development of the global network and controversial issues arising from different users’ wide communication. According to Kosseff (2019), in 1996, a special Section 230 was added to the Communications Decency Act, and its twenty-six-word statement became key in creating the basic principles of responsibility for user activity and administering online resources.
As Kosseff (2019) states, the first Internet protocols were developed in accordance with the criteria of accessibility, openness, and transparency. However, the absence of significant restrictions led to the fact that ethical issues began to occur, in particular, responsibility for content posted online and the rationale for using materials from free access. As a result, the controversy and ambiguity of such a policy led to the need to revise the principles of user activities in a virtual space.
From a legislative perspective, the regulation of the aspects of this area was necessary. Kosseff (2019) argues that lawsuits related to the distribution of digital content caused public outcry and disapproval. As a result, Section 230, as an important addition to the aforementioned act, was developed, and the decision was made to relieve copyright holders of online resources from liability for materials posted by users.
In the context of justice, this decision not only simplified the system of interaction in a virtual environment but also reduced the burden on the legislature. According to Kosseff (2019), such a measure was necessary and vital in order to make the Internet better and freer and, at the same time, to prevent excessive liberalization. As a result, this initiative allowed transforming the global digital space and making it look like a modern online environment with a variety of content.
As a result of the advancement of Section 230, a number of significant legislative changes were achieved. According to Kosseff (2019), the Internet industry became more commercially free and accessible, and the legal framework was expanded to promote the capabilities of the global network and create a ton of opportunities for different stakeholders. The author notes that without this decision, many hosts would be forced to act as defendants for the content of materials published on blogs, personal video and audio files, and other digital methods of transmitting information (Kosseff, 2019).
Moreover, not only small service providers were able to benefit from the 1996 initiative. Kosseff (2019) cites the example of Amazon, the global retailer that also allows users to publish private content, for instance, the reviews of certain products. The company is not responsible for the content of these materials, which is an essential option. Therefore, within the legal framework, Section 230 was an extremely important and valuable initiative.
With the expansion of the capabilities of the Internet and the commercialization of its numerous fields, it is impossible to imagine the global web without the right to publish copyrighted content on external sites. Kosseff (2019) states that the lack of legislative responsibility allows all interested parties to focus on more important aspects of online interaction. Rights to express personal positions, which are defined as integral components of a free society, were taken into account when creating Section 230 and were considered the fundamental principles of human interaction in both real and virtual environments. As a result, the First Amendment, as one of the most significant normative acts of the US legislation, determined the legal features of Section 230 implementation.
Relationship of Section 230 with the First Amendment
Since the First Amendment states that it is unacceptable to infringe on freedom of speech or to enforce liability for personal expression of will, Section 230 is the supplement that directly relates to this constitutional provision. As Kosseff (2019) argues, the implementation of this law has enabled millions of people to interact freely in the online space without fear of persecution. Nevertheless, the author notes that the First Amendment is not an absolute law and suggests some conventions (Kosseff, 2019).
In other words, one cannot state that any public utterance is not potentially forbidden because the existing legislative principles that determine the spectrum of offenses for disseminating prohibited information do not allow realizing the unconditional right to freedom of speech. For instance, libel is the form of publicity, which is unacceptable in any its manifestation. However, one of the main strengths of Section 230 is that while this comprehensive code of rules refers to the Internet only and the capabilities of users within this global network, it addresses the provisions of the First Amendment as clearly as possible (Kosseff, 2019). As a result, the relationship between both regulations is direct.
When talking about the relevance of Section 230 in the context of the topics covered by the First Amendment, the adoption of the law on the free Internet was a mandatory measure. Kosseff (2019) notes that initially, the state constitutional act could not provide adequate protection for administrators of digital platforms that provided services to third parties. Therefore, the introduction of the new law was not just timely but extremely necessary in view of the challenges that host administrators faced. The constraints and limitations of the First Amendment are essential to take into account because, despite the importance of this set of rules, its basic conditions and provisions were not designed to cover the digital space (Kosseff, 2019).
While assuming that content distributors know and do not take any counter-measures with respect to possible violations on their websites, they are to face fair punishment. However, it is impossible to prove unequivocally that these stakeholders are aware of all the violations. The implementation of Section 230 in general legal practice eliminated these controversial aspects and removed liability from distributors of Internet services, which allowed expanding the capabilities of the First Amendment.
The issue of the lack of an opportunity to express individual opinions on the Internet freely became the background for the development and implementation of Section 230 in the legislation as an addition to the First Amendment. The implementation of the program to help online providers was not only relevant but also a logical decision (Kosseff, 2019). An increasing number of users made it impossible for administrators of virtual platforms to control the activity of visitors.
However, in the context of past legislation, the ignorance of the violation did not exempt from liability. With the advent of Section 230, distributors were able to relieve themselves of responsibility for users’ excessive freedom of speech. In addition, as Kosseff (2019) remarks, the First Amendment concerned not only public statements but also and other nuances associated with personal choices and preferences. Accordingly, various issues were included in its framework, which complicated the interpretation of individual cases. However, Section 230 helped simplify the procedure for resolving cases related to the freedom of speech clause and exclude any complaints and claims against Internet providers. Thus, creating this background became a safety guarantee for Internet users.
Political Significance of Section 230
In the context of political significance, Section 230 also became an important legislative innovation and allowed solving a number of urgent problems. Kosseff (2019) mentions public speaking and broadcasting politicians’ speeches online and notes that in case of a court claiming the content of their statements, the administrators of those platforms could be accused of posting illegal content. However, after the implementation of Section 230 on the Internet and minimizing the liability of providers, such results became impossible, which had an objective explanation. As online sites are convenient and accessible platforms for broadcasting any news, Section 230 became a guarantee of the security of providers who had the right to post relevant content.
Politicians themselves could also sense changes in legislation and their responsibilities. Their public activity on the Internet began to be regarded as individual initiatives but not the result of an agreement with administrators, and any liability for actions or words spoken to a wide audience was considered in the context of personal choices and preferences. Thus, the introduction of freer rules made adjustments to the political sector and changed the principles of responsibility for public activity.
Due to fears and threats of criminal liability for violations of the law, prior to the adoption of Section 230, political activities on the Internet were limited. Kosseff (2019) emphasizes that until 1996, the global network was a significantly less promising area for attracting mass attention than today, and the situation was complicated by ambiguous legislation. Accordingly, the participation of politicians in online speeches was rare.
However, with the adoption of the law on the free Internet and the absence of threats to providers for user-posted content, changes occurred, including the field of politics. At the same time, despite the liberalization of the responsibility system, the volume of public speeches in the online space was still controlled, but the main emphasis was on tracking prohibited materials. Censorship did not stop working, and, as Kosseff (2019) states, some stakeholders were negative about the new legislation, trying to regulate the activity of individual politicians online. However, such actions may not be regarded as the result of incompetent legislative decisions but as a natural process of political struggle; therefore, the initiative itself was relevant and a necessary measure in the current public environment.
Although after the introduction of Section 230 into a single legislative system, the mandatory removal of liability from providers was implied, some interested boards were not ready to abandon traditional measures of influence quickly. Kosseff (2019) mentions the judiciary in the context of political freedom of speech and notes that many legal representatives had differing views from those promoted after the adoption of the new law.
Online political speeches were often controversial at the early stage of updated legislation, and some judges were skeptical about the personal responsibility of speakers, referring to the publicity of virtual resources and their role in shaping public views. However, soon, those opinions gave way to more liberal ideas that allowed political activities on the Internet. Kosseff (2019) notes that some individuals were skeptical of Section 230, for instance, Mr. Kozinski who argued that such a global change in legislation could affect the entire legal system and existing political freedoms adversely. Nevertheless, most stakeholders took this initiative without substantial skepticism, and as a result, the policy of responsibility for public speaking on the Internet became generally accepted.
Section 230 and Copyright/Trademark
The introduction of Section 230 had many positive implications, but the influence of the new conditions was not unlimited and did not cover all areas of public activity without exception. Kosseff (2019) notes that state legal claims could be brought against those online administrators who infringed on patent laws, as well as copyright and trademarks. Intellectual property rights have always been a significant aspect of the legal system, and even in the context of freedom of speech and the First Amendment allowing unrestricted expression of will, the aforementioned violations retained their status.
Challenging the validity of the implementation of Section 230 was largely based on the fear of courts regarding privacy rights. According to Kosseff (2019), conflicts among different authorities were often based on the inadmissibility of giving Internet providers absolute freedom and irresponsibility regarding user-posted content. In addition, copyright holders also joined the movement to limit the impact of Section 230 and its capabilities regarding the availability of digital materials. In this regard, discussions were frequent, and claims to the right of publicity were expressed by the courts in view of the potential violations of copyright and patent rights.
In order to make necessary changes in copyright and trademark legislation, in addition to Section 230, additional changes were made. Kosseff (2019) mentions the Digital Millennium Copyright Act adopted in 1998 and designed to protect Internet providers from lawsuits for the timely removal of contentious content and proven violations of copyright law. Such an initiative supported the provisions of Section 230 that did not address issues of private rights and was vulnerable in the context of claims by copyright holders.
The validity of this measure was justified because, according to Kosseff (2019), numerous restrictions and restraints would make the free Internet law ineffective and weak due to numerous conditions and a large number of legislative conventions. A number of exceptions were adopted in order to create a safe environment for administrators of virtual platforms, for instance, creating exceptions for cases when copyright holders consented to post private information (Kosseff, 2019). Thus, Section 230 was closely related to issues of copyright, trademarks, and patents, and the promotion of this law with its subsequent strengthening was possible only if the necessary security conditions were provided for Internet administrators and other interested parties.
The significance of copyright initiatives taken after the implementation of Section 230 in official legislation was high and allowed solving a number of urgent issues. Kosseff (2019) mentions healthy competition in the field of intellectual property and notes that the introduction of the free Internet program encouraged many copyright holders to work actively to strengthen content protection strategies. Also, the author provides examples of individual firms and organizations and argues that Section 230 was a significant tool in resolving specific disputes (Kosseff, 2019).
For instance, Google, the world-famous IT corporation, uses the provisions of this legislation regularly when it deals with complaints from copyright holders concerning illegally posted materials and, thereby, avoids criminal liability for potential violations (Kosseff, 2019). Despite the fact that the field of digital technology operates in the world regions differently, similar principles of liability are applied to resolve issues related to copyright and trademarks. As a result, the relevance and significance of Section 230 and its provisions are high in the context of the industry, and specific legislative initiatives help Internet service providers maintain independence and protect themselves from the claims of digital content copyright holders.
Social and Ethical Implications of Section 230
Regarding the implications that Section 230 provided to the legislative practice of regulating Internet activity and provider responsibility, the development of this project became a significant aspect of socially-oriented work. According to Kosseff (2019), some topics received closer attention, for instance, sex trafficking through social networks because administrators of virtual platforms who could not be held responsible for the distributed content needed the help of the relevant authorities to monitor suspicious user activities. Also, the social direction itself was revised since the creators of the free Internet clause promoted the idea of ​​involving a large number of stakeholders to control possible illegal activities (Kosseff, 2019).
As a result, new opportunities were achieved due to all the innovations. Kosseff (2019) defines the Internet as a potentially more promising digital area than television or other media, and the possibility of posting a variety of materials in the public domain opens up high educational, financial, and other opportunities for users. Thus, in the context of social work, Section 230 became a significant and in-demand law that simplified the search for valuable information and, at the same time, drew attention to existing pressing issues.
From the perspective of trade-partnership relationships, the provisions of Section 230 determined special conditions for the interaction of interested parties in the online space. Kosseff (2019) mentions lawsuits by individual companies based on allegedly unsubstantiated research reports. The author notes that, in accordance with Section 230, any claims and penalties for research practices involving individual value judgments are illegitimate (Kosseff, 2019).
This justification, in turn, served as a significant factor in the competitive environment of marketers and other digital market participants who promoted their products online and were involved in trade and intermediary relations. As a result, interaction in the virtual environment is as free and independent of personal assessments as possible, and only in the case of blatant violations of the law can charges be brought against service providers. Therefore, such a social aspect is essential and closely related to Section 230.
The normative act under consideration, which defines special conditions for the responsibility of providers for digital content posted by users, was perceived ambiguously not only because of social but also ethical perspectives. For instance, Kosseff (2019) argues that the issue of removing materials from certain platforms may be accompanied by the dissatisfaction of administrators and complaints of individual users.
This position is explained by the aforementioned First Amendment and the right of people to express personal opinions and ideas regarding desired topics freely. Consequently, from an ethical point of view, the impact on providers is coercive and may be perceived as ethically unjustified pressure entailing the violation of constitutional rights. However, as Kosseff (2019) notes, in accordance with official statements, Section 230 was aimed primarily at resolving legal rather than ethical nuances.
Although ethics issues were touched upon and considered in the process of discussing the relevance of this law, their discussion was less important than the problems of copyright, trademarks, and patents. Therefore, when taking into account the key objectives of Section 230, its provisions addressed ethical issues indirectly and did not imply putting excessive pressure on Internet providers.
One of the most critical topics related to ethical considerations regarding the importance of Section 230 is defamation and possible penalties for false information posted online. In his book, Kosseff (2019) mentions some lawsuits filed on the basis of suspicions of certain virtual sites in libel and notes that the evidence of unlawful charges was a prerequisite for the consideration of these cases. Also, the author emphasizes that neither immediately after implementation nor today, Section 230 can serve as a guarantor of protection against claims for defamation charges since, even in the First Amendment, relevant justifications are given, which explain the features of this topic (Kosseff, 2019).
Nevertheless, the Section under consideration received significant force because, in those cases when any contentious ethical issues related to slander and allegedly unfounded charges, this normative act was one of the key documents to which all the interested parties referred. Moreover, its provisions gave accused parties an opportunity to prove their innocence comprehensively, which was beneficial to defendants. Therefore, the capabilities of Section 230 were significant, and addressing ethical topics, including defamation, often involved utilizing this law as a legitimate and authoritative act.
Section 230: Modifications and Potential Amendments
Despite the fact that Section 230 was a relevant and necessary act at the time of its adoption, today, for better and more stable operation of Internet providers, some modifications could be made. For instance, Kosseff (2019) argues that when analyzing frequent cases of terrorist acts, the corresponding authorities reveal that the preparation of attacks was carried out through social media where extremists discussed all their actions.
Therefore, to prevent such incidents, national security agencies should get more freedom to track potential threats and analyze user activity on popular social media platforms. Providers should not be held responsible for possible extremist appeals on their websites, but the powers of monitoring authorities should be expanded so that, in case of suspicion, timely measures could be taken. To do this, relevant amendments are to be made to Section 230, and specific agencies should receive the right to monitor controversial user content.
The repeal of Section 230 cannot be considered an objective solution in the modern Internet space where a significant amount of content is generated by users themselves. At the same time, in order to eliminate controversial issues, for instance, copyright or trademark infringements when placing certain materials, the regulatory authorities may require providers to conduct mandatory checks and monitor the content that is published on their platforms.
Some administrators follow this principle, but on many sites, including social networks with a large number of users, there are not enough resources to track prohibited materials. As Kosseff (2019) notes, Congress has the power to repeal Section 230 if more frequent cases of violations of the law in the virtual space are observed. Therefore, the requirements for providers are justified in the face of ever-increasing digital content.
Finally, another possible change that might be made to Section 230 is the tightening of control not only for user activity but also for providers. In an effort to capitalize on certain content, online platform administrators may enter into agreements with third parties and allow content to be published on their platforms. Since Section 230 implies that providers are not liable for user-generated content, the hosts of websites are protected comprehensively. However, according to Kosseff (2019), in controversial cases, providers may not be mentioned as distributors but as publishers, which imposes increased obligations on them. Therefore, to prevent problems, the interaction of official boards with Internet service administrators should be strengthened to prevent misunderstanding.
Conclusion
When analyzing the book by Kosseff (2019), one can argue that the adoption of Section 230 in 1996 was one of the most important decisions to maintain a free Internet and create conditions for the active generation of user content and trade-partnership relationships in general. This normative act has always been related to the First Amendment and supplemented its provisions. In the context of legal relevance, Section 230 was a crucial decision that simplified the work of courts and created more opportunities for Internet providers’ activities. From a political perspective, this document also played a significant role and determined the possibilities and accessibility of public statements in the virtual space.
Some social and ethical aspects were discussed, for instance, the issues of defamation or involving website administrators in helping security agencies. However, copyright and trademark topics received particular attention, and appropriate control is offered to track potential violations. In general, the potentially positive changes that might be made to Section 230 could relate to the increased control of user activity and the call of providers to work with authorities to prevent controversial cases.
Reference
Kosseff, J. (2019). The twenty-six words that created the Internet. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.