Communications Decency Act
Sponsor
Sen. James Exon (D-NE)
What It Says It Does
Section 501 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that Title V may be cited as the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The findings at 47 U.S.C. 230(a) state that the Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, and that they have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation. The policy at 47 U.S.C. 230(b) states that it is the policy of the United States to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet, unfettered by Federal or State regulation, and to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material. Neither the findings nor the policy subsections have been amended since enactment.
What It Authorizes
Section 501, Section 509, and 47 U.S.C. 230
Section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, titled Online Family Empowerment, added a new Section 230 to the Communications Act of 1934. Section 230(c)(1) provides that 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. Section 230(c)(2) provides that no such provider or user shall be held liable for any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to material the provider considers obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected. The section imposes no restriction on government action. It operates solely as a shield against civil liability for private parties.
What It Touches
Constitutional Tension
The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The Communications Decency Act criminalized the knowing transmission of indecent material to minors and the knowing display of patently offensive material in a manner available to minors. In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, decided June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court held those provisions unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth and vagueness grounds, holding that the Internet is entitled to full First Amendment protection rather than the reduced protection afforded to broadcasting. Justice Stevens wrote for the Court. Justice O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part. The judgment was fractured across provisions and is not described by a single vote count. Section 230 was not among the provisions challenged and was not struck. It survived, and it is the only part of the Act most people have heard of. Section 230 raises no constitutional question of its own, because it restricts no government action. The Supreme Court has never interpreted it. In a statement respecting the denial of certiorari in Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, 141 S. Ct. 13, October 13, 2020, Justice Thomas wrote that in the twenty four years since enactment the Court had never interpreted the provision, while many courts had construed it broadly to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies in the world. That critique is one of statutory interpretation, not of constitutional law.
A court ruled against the government on this question.
Sunset and Renewal
No sunset clause.
No sunset clause. Section 230 was amended by the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, Pub. L. 115-164, April 11, 2018, which created an exception to Section 230 immunity for claims and prosecutions relating to sex trafficking.
Status verified September 2026.