Summary
EFF primer on the origin of Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230). Explains the legal bind created by the 1991 Cubby v. CompuServe and 1995 Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy cases — moderating made you a publisher liable for all content, not moderating made you a distributor safer from libel. The Cox-Wyden amendment to the Communications Decency Act created immunity for “providers of an interactive computer service,” passing the House 420-4. CDA’s indecency provisions were then struck down in Reno v. ACLU (1997); Section 230 survived.
Key Points
- Cubby v. CompuServe (1991): no moderation → not liable as publisher.
- Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (1995): moderation → liable for all 60,000 daily posts.
- Sen. James Exon (D-NE) introduced Communications Decency Act Feb 1995; tacked onto 1996 Telecommunications Act.
- Reps. Chris Cox (R-CA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced the Section 230 amendment.
- Two purposes: (1) encourage unregulated free speech development, (2) allow platforms to set their own moderation standards and child-safety policies.
- House passed Cox-Wyden 420-4.
- Telecommunications Act signed Feb 8, 1996 — ACLU filed suit same day.
- June 26, 1997: SCOTUS 9-0 struck down CDA indecency provisions in Reno v. ACLU. Section 230 survived.
- EFF ran Blue Ribbon Campaign; sites blacked out in protest.
Newsletter Angles
- The doctrinal bedrock: every current Section 230 debate rests on the Cubby/Stratton tension. Worth cleanly explaining before the next sunset attempt.
- The bipartisan origin: Cox was Republican, Wyden was Democrat, 420-4 was a near-unanimous House. The current push to sunset Section 230 is also bipartisan. Same dynamic, opposite direction.
- Wyden is still in the Senate. The man who wrote Section 230 is watching his own colleagues try to repeal it.
Entities Mentioned
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- ACLU
- Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA)
- Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)
- Sen. James Exon (D-NE)
- CompuServe
- Prodigy
- Stratton Oakmont
Concepts Mentioned
- Section 230
- Communications Decency Act
- Reno v. ACLU
- Publisher vs. distributor liability
- Content moderation
- First Amendment
Quotes
EFF framing: the amendment was designed to “encourage the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet.”
Notes
EFF explainer — advocacy-adjacent but historically accurate. Dated 2012 — baseline legal-history document. Use as reference for the “what Section 230 actually does” framing.