Section 230 Reform

OP-ED by: Lauren Lainez

With the constant evolution of the internet it has become dangerously easy for people to abuse the platforms they are on, using them as a tool for online harassment and nonconsensual pornography. This issue has left many people with lifetime trauma and little control over the situation they are victims of. Because the first amendment protects freedom of speech, which is the argument of most people who initiate these problems and section 230 protects corporations from being held responsible for the actions of users on their social media sites. Therefore it is often extremely difficult for victims of online harassment to not only keep the pictures and comments offline but also for the abusers to be held accountable. Although the individual people are the ones doing the harassing, no significant change will take place unless we start with the law that is allowing this to happen in the first place. Because media platforms are not held responsible for this harmful content and it is often benefiting them from a business standpoint, the accountability needs to start with them. This is why I believe a reform of section 230 would be the best start to solving the issue of online harassment and nonconsensual pornography.

In Carrie Goldberg’s “Nobody’s Victim,” chapter 6 “Profitters of Pain” she discusses some examples of victims of online harassment and revenge porn. She discusses how she’s had many clients whose pictures got leaked by angry exes, friends or hackers and ended up on numerous porn sites, often intended as a punishment, humiliation or even just for money (Goldberg 116). These pictures often end up on social media sites as well such as Facebook. The effects of this harassment can be detrimental. Tyler Clemti for example was spied on having an intimate moment with a man by his roommate who showed the videos to multiple people and posted offensive comments about the situation of facebook (Goldberg 117). Once Clemti read this, he soon committed suicide (Goldberg 117). The harassers did not feel they were responsible for the situation and had no accountability and Clemti’s is not the only case like this that resulted in suicde (Goldberg 118). In addition many people have taken advantage of revenge porn by making sites specifically to post such content.

For example Hunter Moore created “IsAnyOneUp,” a site made for revenge porn posts of women that even included personal information and offensive commentary (Goldberg 120). Because section 230 prohibited this creator from being held responsible, the site was allowed and took years to get any accountability (Goldberg 122). By then, the damage was done. Other creators copied this idea and even created sites such as TakedownHammer that took advantage of the trauma the postings caused for women, charging them expensive fees to take down the photos (Goldberg 125). Goldberg also explains how while some states have been persuaded to enact laws against non-consensual pornography, there are still 5 states without these laws and section 230 is still preventing accountability for many businesses giving them little incentive to restrict this type of content. In Mary Anne Frank's “The Cult of The Constitution,” she explains how section 230 is not only benefiting these corporations and giving them “immunity” to either restricting or not restricting content, no matter what they do or do not do, they are not held responsible (Franks 169). In other words, they are benefiting, bringing in customers of all sorts, earning money, while users and victims of revenge porn are suffering the consequences of their lack of liability.

Franks also explains how section 230 is intended “to promote the continued development of the internet and other interactive computer services and interactive media” and “preserve the vibrant and competitive free market” (Franks 170). She also talks about how many people would claim free speech regarding issues of harassment saying “freedom for the thought that we hate” (Franks 110). Although, there is a point where one person’s freedom of speech is costing another person their freedom to their own body, their freedom to privacy, their freedom to be able to exist online without being harassed or objectified. Freedom of speech should not go unrestricted when it is at the cost of another person's privacy, wellbeing and safety.

In conclusion, the widespread use of the internet and social media and the lack of liability for corporations regarding what is posted on their sites has allowed for many people’s most vulnerable and intimate moments to be leaked, sexualized and mocked leading to humiliation and lifetime trauma, sometimes even resulting in suicide. It should not be so easy for people to abuse the internet and use it as a place for harassment on the claims of free speech. The goal of section 230 to “promote a vibrant competitive free market” should not be of higher value than protecting people's basic rights to privacy. A section 230 reform may not solve the problem and may not change individuals but the problem worsens with the tolerance of online harassment within these corporations. And the more widespread revenge porn is, the more people will be coerced into thinking it is ok. The best place to start with tackling this issue is section 230, by holding corporations responsible, they will be given more incentive to keep this content off their sites resulting in many future victims being saved from the humiliation of non-consensual pornography and harassment.

---

Goldberg, Carrie. Nobody's Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs and Trolls. VIRAGO Press LTD, 2020.

Franks, Mary Anne. The Cult of the Constitution. Stanford University Press, 2020.