The Threat to DC Urban Moms and Dads

Republicans have long championed legislation that would make it impossible for websites such as DC Urban Moms and Dads to continue operating. That the Republican Party is currently dominated by autocrats that want complete control of society, including Internet services, should not be news to anyone. However, Democrats are now joining the effort. Democrats have recently come out in strong support of the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law currently protects small websites like ours, and without it, we would face unacceptable legal exposure.

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was actually an attempt by Congress to regulate certain content on the Internet. However, a year after passage, the bulk of the law was overturned by the United States Supreme Court on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment. The Court left one section intact. That was Section 230, which remains in effect. The key provision of the statute is Section (c)(1), which says:

Treatment of publisher or speaker

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.

Of particular interest to me as a provider of an interactive computer service is Section (c)(2)(A), which prevents liability for:

any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;

The first of these provisions means that the providers of this website — me and my wife Maria — will not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any content posted by other users. For that matter, neither will any users that happen to come across the content, though normally nobody expects otherwise. Why this matters to me is that it means that I do not have liability for other people's posts. If someone posts unlawful content, they and they alone are legally liable. If I were to be considered the publisher of all content posted to the website, I would have to strictly moderate each and every post in order to protect myself from legal exposure. On a website with thousands of posts per day, that is simply not practical.

Often this provision is misinterpreted to mean that in the case that I act as a publisher in the broader sense by moderating content, I lose the protections offered by Section 230. That is not true as stated in the second provision that I quoted above. That part of the statute prevents liability for removing objectionable material even if that content is constitutionally protected. Therefore, if a MAGA user posts the latest conspiracy theory that has been circulating on X, I can remove it with no ramifications beyond the subsequent whining that is likely to occur in the "Website Feedback" forum.

Simply put, Section 230 is what has allowed the Internet to thrive. Without its protections, a website like DC Urban Moms and Dads would face unacceptable legal exposure. We would have to moderate every single post, meaning that for periods of time in which we were not available, there would be no new content added to the forums. There would likely be less content overall, and what would be available would be less interesting. Users would lose interest, and the forums would enter a death spiral. The same is true with most Internet sites that rely on user-generated content. The exceptions are the large companies that can employ teams of lawyers and afford the associated legal costs.

Republicans have long wanted greater control over Internet content. The notorious Project 2025 blueprint for the current administration calls for eliminating the liability protections that Section 230 provides. Again, without this protection, DC Urban Moms and Dads and thousands of other small websites could not risk the legal exposure. That Trump and his cult followers want unchecked control over online speech is not a surprise. What is a surprise is the willingness of Democrats to provide Trump such authority.

Democrats seem to believe that repealing Section 230 will pressure online platforms to make greater efforts to control hate speech, adult content, and other material they oppose. Probably the leading Democratic proponent of repealing Section 230 is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Earlier this month, Whitehouse announced that he was joining Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to co-sponsor a bipartisan bill to repeal Section 230. Whitehouse said that he has long believed that Section 230 has outlived its use and has become a "vessel for evil." When he spoke in favor of the repeal, Whitehouse displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of Section 230. He is even more incoherent when he describes what he hopes will be achieved by repealing the law. To hear Whitehouse tell it, Section 230 primarily protects the likes of X and Alex Jones. It is true that both are covered by Section 230, but Jones has much stronger protections in the First Amendment. Repealing Section 230 won't remove Jones' free speech rights. As for X, Elon Musk has plenty of money to fight lawsuits. The same is not true of the small websites such as DC Urban Moms and Dads.

On a practical level, Section 230 provides essential protection for websites like this one. We receive legal threats on such a frequent basis that the topic is addressed in our "Frequently Asked Questions" document. As is noted in the FAQ, the target of any legal actions should be the creator of the content in question. Of course, that is made more difficult on a website that provides anonymous posting. Nevertheless, those seeking legal recourse are able to subpoena us for IP addresses or any other information to help identify the content creator. We have responded to many subpoenas over the years. The key point here is that, thanks to Section 230, we are easily able to ward off lawsuits. Even if we were faced with such legal action, it would be relatively easy to defend and not require significant legal expenses. Without Section 230, addressing lawsuits would require skilled attorneys who are familiar with a range of topics from online speech laws and defamation statutes to First Amendment protections. Such cases would require either expensive settlements or even more expensive and time-consuming legal procedures. These are simply not liabilities that we can afford to incur.

Republicans are currently aligned with big tech and would probably not be overly disappointed to see small websites like this one die out and large companies such as X and Meta secure their hold on Internet social activity. Those companies would be easy to control, much as the government forced TikTok to change its practices to adhere to government desires. Why Democrats want to put such power into Trump's hands is a mystery. The best explanation, at least based on what  Whitehouse has said, is that they are simply uninformed and have no idea what they are doing. I have a very personal interest in seeing Section 230 remain in place. But I also have a larger concern, one that I hope all readers of this blog share, which is the future of the Internet. Do we really want to see the Internet transformed into an environment in which only those who can afford sufficient legal expertise can participate? Do we really want to give Trump the ability to snuff out any website with which he disagrees? For that matter, would we want to give a Democrat such power? I, for one, do not.