Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects tech platforms from liability over what users' post. The law was crucial to the growth of the modern internet. However, in recent years, both sides of the political spectrum have called for its revision.
Democrats feel that the law allows social media to ignore the spread of “misinformation,” “hate speech,” and other content. On the other hand, conservatives feel the law allows online platforms to unfairly censor their views.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who is a conservative, has called for a review of Section 230 several times. On Monday, he called on his fellow justices to take a case that would provide an opportunity to reduce Section 230's broad scope.
We obtained a copy of the argument for you here.
Thomas agreed with a decision by the high court not to take a case involving Facebook's parent company Meta. But, he wrote: “We should, however, address the proper scope of immunity under §230 in an appropriate case.”
Thomas further argued that “the arguments in favor of broad immunity” under Section 230 are not secured in the statute's text.
In 2020, the veteran judge warned there would be “serious consequences” from lower courts broadly interpreting the provision.