Defending Internet Freedom and Section 230

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is one of the most important laws protecting free speech on the internet. Enacted in 1996, this twenty-six word provision states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”¹ In plain terms, Section 230 means that websites and platforms cannot be held legally liable for content posted by their users. If someone writes something defamatory on Reddit or Twitter, you can sue the person who wrote it, but you cannot sue the platform for hosting it.

This legal protection is the reason the internet works the way it does. Without Section 230, every comment section, every forum, every independent blog would expose its owner to unlimited legal liability for anything users post. Only the largest corporations could afford the legal risk of hosting user content. Small platforms, independent media outlets, and individual creators would be forced offline.² The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called Section 230 essential to “the free and open internet as we know it,” noting that for more than twenty-five years it has “protected small blogs, websites, big platforms, and individual users.”²

Congress must defend Section 230 against the coordinated legislative assault now underway, and I will oppose any legislation that undermines free speech online under the guise of protecting children or preventing harm.

The Legislative Assault on Section 230

Right now in Congress, there is a coordinated effort to weaken or repeal Section 230. In December 2025, Senators Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham introduced the Sunset Section 230 Act (S.3546), which would repeal Section 230 entirely within two years unless Congress passes a replacement framework.³ Senators Josh Hawley, Marsha Blackburn, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Amy Klobuchar have signed on as cosponsors.³ There have already been ten proposals to amend or repeal Section 230 in just the first few months of the 119th Congress.⁴

These bills come from both parties and represent a dangerous bipartisan consensus that the solution to online harms is giving government and corporations more power to control speech. Supporters argue that sunsetting Section 230 will force technology companies to take responsibility for content on their platforms. In reality, removing Section 230 protections would not make the internet safer; it would make the internet smaller, less diverse, and more controlled by the largest corporations that can afford armies of lawyers and content moderators.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has warned that repealing Section 230 “would only cement the status of Big Tech monopolies” because large platforms can absorb liability costs that would destroy smaller competitors.² Section 230 protects everyone who hosts user content online, from major social media platforms to small community forums to individual bloggers who allow comments on their posts.

The “Duty of Care” Framework: A Dangerous Precedent

Representative Jake Auchincloss has introduced legislation to carve holes in Section 230 through his Intimate Privacy Protection Act (H.R. 9187).⁵ The bill is framed as a response to non-consensual deepfake pornography, which is a real problem deserving of targeted solutions. However, the mechanism the bill uses is dangerous and sets a troubling precedent for internet regulation.

The Intimate Privacy Protection Act creates what is called a “duty of care” for social media platforms.⁵ Under this framework, platforms lose their Section 230 immunity unless they implement specific processes to prevent and remove certain categories of harmful content, including removing flagged content within twenty-four hours.⁵ While this may sound reasonable in isolation, the duty of care framework fundamentally transforms how liability works online.

Courts have refused to impose a duty of care on speech for nearly a century, and for good reason.⁶ The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has warned that when platforms face broad, vague obligations to prevent harm, they do not carefully evaluate each piece of content. They over-censor. They remove first and ask questions later, because the cost of leaving something up is potential liability, while the cost of taking it down is nothing.⁶ As the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear, imposing civil liability for protected speech raises serious First Amendment concerns.⁶

This duty of care framework is the same mechanism used in KOSA, the Kids Online Safety Act. KOSA is a bill that would require platforms to prevent and mitigate harm to minors, but the categories of harm are so vague that platforms would be forced to restrict access to content about mental health, LGBTQ issues, and political topics simply to avoid liability.⁷ The Electronic Frontier Foundation and more than ninety organizations, including the ACLU and numerous LGBTQ groups, have warned that KOSA would censor the internet for everyone.⁷

When Representative Auchincloss dismissed concerns about his legislation by saying “James Madison didn’t write this law,” he missed the point entirely.⁸ James Madison did not write laws about the internet, but the principle that we hold speakers responsible for their own speech rather than the people who provide them a platform is as old as the First Amendment itself.

Age Verification Laws: Surveillance Disguised as Safety

Beyond direct attacks on Section 230, there is a wave of age verification legislation moving through Congress and state legislatures that would fundamentally change how Americans access the internet. These bills go by names like “online safety” and “protecting kids,” but civil liberties groups are sounding the alarm that what they actually do is build a surveillance infrastructure that tracks every user’s identity.⁹

Representative Auchincloss has introduced the Parents Over Platforms Act (H.R. 6333), which would require app stores to collect age information on every user and share that data with app developers.¹⁰ The bill frames this as “age assurance” rather than “age verification,” but the underlying mechanism is the same: everyone who uses a smartphone would be subject to age categorization, and that information would be shared across the app ecosystem.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has launched an entire resource hub to fight back against these laws.⁹ Their position is clear: all age verification systems are identity verification systems, and identity verification systems are surveillance systems. To confirm that one group of users is under eighteen, you have to verify the identity of everyone. This means government IDs, facial recognition, or biometric scans for millions of users just to access basic apps.⁹

The same politicians pushing age verification laws are often the ones who do not like what young people are saying online. Former Representative Mike Gallagher, who led the push for the TikTok ban that Auchincloss co-sponsored, admitted publicly that the bill was “dead” until October 7, 2023, and then gained momentum because people started seeing content critical of Israel on the platform.¹¹ Senator Mitt Romney complained that TikTok had too many mentions of Palestinians compared to other platforms.¹¹ The concern was never really about Chinese spying; it was about young Americans seeing content that made them sympathetic to Palestinians.

A Pattern of Internet Censorship

When you look at Representative Auchincloss’s record—the TikTok ban, the Parents Over Platforms Act, and the Intimate Privacy Protection Act’s assault on Section 230—a pattern emerges. Each of these proposals gives government and corporations more power to control what Americans can see and say online, and each one is sold as protecting someone from harm.

The answer to harmful speech is more speech, not less freedom. The answer to misinformation is better information, not government-approved content moderation. The answer to foreign influence is media literacy and transparency requirements, not banning platforms that host views politicians find inconvenient.

What Congress Must Do

Congress should defend Section 230 against legislative attacks that would undermine free speech online. I will oppose the Sunset Section 230 Act, duty of care mandates like KOSA and the Intimate Privacy Protection Act, and age verification requirements that build surveillance infrastructure under the guise of protecting children.

Oppose Section 230 Repeal: Congress should reject legislation that would sunset or repeal Section 230. The law has protected free expression online for nearly thirty years and remains essential to the diverse, open internet that enables democratic participation, independent media, and individual expression.

Reject Duty of Care Frameworks: Congress should oppose legislation that conditions Section 230 immunity on platforms implementing vague “duty of care” requirements. These frameworks inevitably lead to over-censorship as platforms remove legal speech to avoid liability risks. The principle that speakers are responsible for their own speech, not the platforms that host them, must be preserved.

Block Age Verification Mandates: Congress should oppose legislation requiring age verification for internet access. These systems are surveillance systems that eliminate online anonymity, expose users to data breaches, and give government unprecedented power to track citizens’ online activities. The European model of requiring identification to access the internet is incompatible with American free speech values.

Protect User Privacy: Rather than mandating that platforms collect more user data through age verification, Congress should pass comprehensive privacy legislation limiting what data companies can collect in the first place. Strong privacy protections would do more to protect children and everyone else than surveillance mandates.

Ensure Transparency Without Censorship: Where legitimate concerns exist about platform practices, Congress should pursue transparency requirements rather than content mandates. Requiring platforms to disclose their moderation policies and enforcement patterns empowers users to make informed choices without empowering government to dictate what speech is permissible.

I believe in an open internet where Americans have the right to speak freely, to access information, and to do so without handing their government ID to a technology company every time they open an app. When I am in Congress, I will defend Section 230, oppose age verification mandates and duty of care frameworks, and fight for the principle that made the internet a place where anyone can speak and be heard.

---

References