The Fight Over the New Public Square How can Secti on 230 Reform fi x the issues with social media? “C ongress shall make no law printing press, copies could easily be [ . . . ] abridging the freedom shared among those interested in of speech, or of the press; or reading them, and others shared their the right of the people peaceably to thoughts in the public square near-assemble, and to petition the govern-est to them to those willing to listen. ment for a redress of grievances.” The As technology changed, the differ-First Amendment to the Constitu-ent media allowed more reach, but tion of the United States of America, the individual had always the choice outlining our possibly most cher-of whether or not to listen. With the ished liberty, ensures all Americans rise of the internet, public message have the ability to speak their mind, boards and social media are the new whether by spoken word or written public square, with a unique twist: the dissemination, with no fear of retri-“public” square exists as the property bution by the government. of private businesses. No law exists protecting the rights of individuals At the time the First Amendment was to share their thoughts using prop-written, a person’s ability to share erty owned by someone else, effec-their thoughts was limited. With a tively allowing the platform to make 28 • AMAC Magazine the rules on what is and isn’t allowed. This ability stems from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Under Section 230, any online plat-form is protected from liability for the content created by its users. This means an online platform has free rein to decide how heavy-handed their moderation can be. Most sites have drawn a basic line in the sand: no harassment or threats of physical harm to others; if it’s illegal in the real world, it isn’t allowed online; and in some cases, there are limits on vulgar or lewd content, depending on the age of the audience. In contrast, other parts of the internet have created a continued on page 30