Why was Section 230 written?
Before Section 230 there were not any laws regarding who was liable for things that were said on the internet. Two specific cases Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy and Cubby v. CompuServe, both from the early 90s, gave differing opinions on libel and liability on the Internet. Section 230 was written to make liability more clear.
In the CompuServe case, CompuServe was cleared of liability in a libel case because it does not exercise any control over the material that is posted on its site, but in the Prodigy case, because they have some sort of monitoring software that filtered out obscene messages, it meant that they were open to the libel suit because they had made an attempt to control some of the material posted on the site.
"The choices are really to either put the clamps on and read everything," Ek said, "or have no guidelines and no monitors."
This article showcases the confusion surrounding liability and libel on the internet
"The court said: 'Prodigy's conscious choice, to gain the benefit of editorial control, has opened it up to a greater liability than other computer networks that make no such choice.'"
This article talks about the Prodigy and CompuServe cases, and what happens when courts decide if a service provider is acting as a Publisher, or a Distributor.
"The proposal put forward by Rep. Cox and Oregon Democratic Rep. Ron Wyden, by contrast, overturns the court decisions and ensures that on-line providers who try to make their service "family-friendly" will not be subject to additional liability for their "good Samaritan" efforts. It also bars the Federal Communications Commission from economic or content regulation over the Internet, but encourages industry cooperation and innovation to develop new ways to improve user control over the information children and parents receive. Bottom line? The market will be encouraged to provide and improve programs that will enable parents to effectively filter what their children are able to access without having to become hot-shot computer experts themselves."
This article talks about the CompuServe and Prodigy cases, and why the Cox-Wyden approach is a better way to handle liability and censorship on the internet.