Supporting the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 - Term Paper Example

This means that online intermediaries that are charged with the responsibility of hosting or republishing of speech are offered protection against a range of laws that might otherwise be applied in holding them legally responsible for whatever other persons say or do. Additionally, the protected intermediaries not only include Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also take into account a range of defined interactive computer service providers which include even the basic online service that publishes third-party contents.

Therefore, the Communication Decency Act 1996 Section 230 defines a wider protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to advance, despite some unique and very fundamental criminal and intellectual property-based claims as may be mentioned. In support and protection of this Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996, EFF has worked recommendably to ensure strong legal protections of websites, blogs, service providers and endeavors to fight down threats aimed at weakening such protections from intermediaries and end users.

Examples of such cases by the EFF include; the Internet Archive and Hoffman of 2013, the Internet Archive and McKenna of 2012, Levitt and Yelp of 2012, eDrop-Off and Burke of 2012 e.t.c. These legal protections provided by the Communication Decency Act Section 230 are quite unique to the U.S law; Canada, European Nations, and Japan. Even though other countries too may be internet users, United State is termed as the most prominent online service user. This is in part due to the CDA 230 that makes United States a safe haven for websites that intended for the provision of a platform for controversial of political issues/speech and legal environments that is favorable to free expression.

Inadequacies Despite its positive intent in protection of the Internet Service Providers, CDA 230 is faced a number of inadequacies that limit its full potential for provide the required protection for the Internet Community. While free speech was certainly the principle of CDA 230 with strong roots in the Constitution, the fact that it so severely outweighed the right of free speech victims to obtain justice is one troubling issue. One of the criticisms of Section 230 is based on the congressional intent.

Section 230 has been so broadly interpreted by the courts in an inconsistent manner with the Congress original intensions when the law was written, and the extent of immunity offered by the courts is in conflict with the language of statute that disassociate any incentive for Internet Service Providers to self-regulate the web content and leave out the plaintiffs without a effective remedy (Brandy J.G., 2004). This is an issue because frustration stems in to the fact that the language of Section 230 itself, as with a number of laws, provides different interpretations.

Some lines within this section are dependent on an individual’s reading, and have the possibility of eventually opposing the outcomes when analyzing several cases. For example section 230 (c) Protection for ‘good Samaritan’ blocking and screening of offensive material; (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker, and (2) Civil liability, parts A and B. in this