Shapes Online Speech
Section 230 is widely credited with enabling the modern internet by allowing platforms to host user content without facing lawsuits over every post.
In plain English
When websites aren't liable for users' posts.
A 1996 federal law that says websites usually can't be sued for what their users post, and can remove content without losing that protection.
Simple example
In lawsuits alleging harm to minors, social media companies have invoked Section 230 to argue they cannot be held responsible for content users uploaded to their platforms.
Why it matters
What the term actually changes.
Limits Legal Remedies
The law constrains the kinds of claims parents, states and school districts can bring against platforms when users — including minors — encounter harmful content.
How it works
The mechanics, in practice.
Liability Shield
Courts have generally interpreted Section 230 to bar most civil claims that treat a platform as the publisher or speaker of third-party content.
Product-Design Exception
Some recent lawsuits try to sidestep Section 230 by alleging harm from a platform's own design features — such as algorithms or notifications — rather than user posts.
Congressional Carve-Outs
Congress has narrowed the shield in specific areas, such as a 2018 law (FOSTA-SESTA) addressing sex trafficking, and lawmakers continue to debate further changes.
Related guide
Should social media companies be held legally liable for harms to minors?
Lawsuits, a federal liability shield and new research are reshaping the debate over kids and social media.
Read the guide → Related issue brief
Should social media companies be held legally liable for harms to minors?
Lawsuits, state actions and a federal liability shield collide as policymakers weigh whether platforms should answer in court for alleged harms to young users.
Read the brief →You’ve learned the term. Now vote.
Should social media companies be held legally liable for harms to minors?
Live results — 82 voters
Anonymous · one vote per person