As the threat of government regulation of the internet mounts from both the political Left and Right, Paul and Matthew sit down to talk about the foundational law that made the internet as we know it possible. Ironically, Section 230 was one of the few bits of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that wasn’t struck down by the courts as a violation of the First Amendment, giving the internet more legal protection than it would have if the moral scolds of the 1990s hadn’t passed the law in the first place. Then, Paul talks with Jennifer Huddleston from the Mercatus Center about her research into the common law origins of Section 230, which rebuts claims that the amendment was some kind of unprecedented “gift” to tech companies.

What was the primary purpose of the Communications Decency Act? What are the ramifications of Section 230? Without Section 230, what would the internet look like? Why is censorship important to the conservative movement?

Further Reading:

What Senator Hawley Gets Wrong about American Identity, written by Aaron Ross Powell

Section 230 Is the Internet’s First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away, written by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

What Republicans are getting wrong about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, written by Zachary Mack

Related Content:

Free Speech Online: Unfriended, Building Tomorrow Podcast

How the FOSTA Rules Create a “Bootleggers and Baptists” Scenario for the 21st Century, written by Paul Matzko

New Conspiracism and Modern Politics (with Russell Muirhead), Free Thoughts Podcast

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.