Communications Law Commons^™

Section 230: The Internet's Most Important And Most Misunderstood Law Is Unfairly Under Attack, Málfríður A. Helgadóttir

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a foundational law enabling the modern internet, is under threat despite its critical role in protecting online platforms from liability for user-generated content. The article argues that Section 230 is essential for promoting free speech and innovation, as its repeal would force platforms to censor content to avoid liability, fundamentally altering the internet. Critics often misunderstand the law, and bipartisan attacks jeopardize its future, risking the unravelling of the internet as we know it.

Keynote Address, Christopher J. Buccafusco, Jeff Kosseff

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

The article discusses the evolution and impact of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, highlighting its role in shaping internet speech and liability. It traces the law's origins, key court rulings, and current debates about its future. The speaker emphasizes the need for informed discussion to address concerns about harmful content, platform moderation, and free speech.

Enhancing The Ftc's Consumer Protection Authority To Regulate Social Media Companies, Paul M. Barrett, Lily Warnke

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

The article argues that Congress should enhance the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) consumer protection authority to regulate social media companies, focusing on procedural oversight rather than substantive content moderation. It proposes that the FTC ensure social media platforms maintain adequate content moderation systems, disclose algorithmic practices, and comply with transparency requirements, all while respecting First Amendment protections. The authors advocate for legislative reforms to clarify the FTC's role in addressing harmful content and to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to limit liability protections for certain harmful activities.

Juridical Discourse For Platforms, Thomas E. Kadri

Scholarly Works

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has created a private “Supreme Court,” or so he says. Since 2021, his company’s Oversight Board has issued verdicts on a smattering of Facebook’s decisions about online speech. Cynics frame the Board as a Potemkin village, but defenders invoke analogies to separation of powers to claim that this new body empowers the public and restrains the company. Some are even calling for a single “platform supreme court” to rule over the entire industry.

Juridical discourse for platforms is powerful, but it can also be deceptive. This Response explores how juridical discourse has legitimized and empowered Facebook’s …

Protecting Expert Advice For The Public: Promoting Safety And Improved Communications, Julia M. Wright, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Amanda Clarke, Matthew Herder, Howard Ramos

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The drivers of the harassment and intimidation of researchers are complex, widespread, and global in their reach and were being studied across many disciplines even before COVID-19. This policy briefing reviews some of the scholarship on this wide-ranging problem but focuses on what can be done to help ensure that Canadians fully benefit from the work of Canada’s researchers while also preserving the security and safety of those researchers. It identifies policies and actions that can be implemented in the near term to gather information on the problem, better frame public research communications, and ensure that mechanisms are readily available …

Something For Nothing: Untangling A Knot Of Section 230 Solutions, Nicholas Bradley

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

Social media platforms have become the dominant public forum of the modern age but there is a big problem: they are privately owned and can moderate content however they like. This right is protected both by the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the latter of which creates immunity from suit for platforms that exercise their right to moderate content by removing—or not removing—objectionable content. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have complained that platforms are abusing this immunity and, while they have put forward a wide variety of legislative solutions, none of them have …

Masthead, Lead Article Editor

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Lead Article Editor

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

À La Carte Cable: A Regulatory Solution To The Misinformation Subsidy, Christopher R. Terry, Eliezer J. Silberberg, Stephen Schmitz, John Stack, Eve Sando

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

Although “fake news” is as old as mass media itself, concerns over disinformation have reached a fever pitch in our current media environment. Online media outlets’ heavy reliance on user-generated content has altered the traditional gatekeeping functions and professional standards associated with traditional news organizations. The idea of objectivity-focused informational content has primarily been substituted for a realist acceptance of the power and popularity of opinion-driven “news.” This shift is starkly visible now: mainstream news media outlets knowingly spread hoaxes, conspiracy theories, and the like.

This current state of affairs is not some freak accident. The Supreme Court’s First Amendment …

Ships Passing In The Night: The Communications Act And The Convergence On Broadband, Stuart Minor Benjamin

Faculty Scholarship

The Communications Act of 1934 and its amendments (the “Act”), and the regulations implementing them, have been enormously important to traditional telephony, broadcasting, and multichannel video. Meanwhile, the internet is barely mentioned in the Act. It thus might seem reasonable to conclude that the Act stands as a colossus and that the argument for overhauling it has grown much stronger as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “1996 Act”) becomes ever more outdated. In this Article I suggest otherwise. Specifically, I make three claims—one descriptive, one a bit speculative, and one normative. The descriptive claim is that significant portions of …

Responding To Mass, Computer-Generated, And Malattributed Comments, Steven J. Balla, Reeve Bull, Bridget C.E. Dooling, Emily Hammond, Michael A. Livermore, Michael Herz, Beth Simone Noveck

Articles

A number of technological and political forces have transformed the once staid and insider dominated notice-and-comment process into a forum for large scale, sometimes messy, participation in regulatory decisionmaking. It is not unheard of for agencies to receive millions of comments on rulemakings; often these comments are received as part of organized mass comment campaigns. In some rulemakings, questions have been raised about whether public comments were submitted under false names, or were automatically generated by computer “bot” programs. In this Article, we examine whether and to what extent such submissions are problematic and make recommendations for how rulemaking agencies …

The Everyday First Amendment, Leonard M. Niehoff, Thomas Sullivan

Articles

On June 26 and June 27, 2019, some twenty contenders for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States participated in two evenings of political debate. The outsized group included Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who was struggling to gain traction with voters. Shortly after the debate, while many viewers were conducting online searches to learn more about the candidates, Google temporarily suspended her campaign’s advertising account.

Google claimed that the interruption occurred because an automated system flagged unusual activity on the account. But Gabbard did not accept this explanation; she believed that Google deliberately had tried to undermine …

Representation Without Elections: Civil Society Participation As A Remedy For The Democratic Deficits Of Online Speech Governance, Brenda Dvoskin

Scholarship@WashULaw

Giant social media companies wield oversized power over what gets communicated online. Yet, it remains unclear how to hold that power accountable to the public. In democracies, governments are limited in how much they can regulate speech directly, creating an obstacle for efforts to make online speech governance more democratic. Corporations are touting civil society consultations to try to regain trust in how they write their rules. Scholars and lawmakers, too, are looking to mandate increased reliance on civil society participation as a means to democratize private governance without involving governmental bodies.

These proposals often make two assumptions. One is …