CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Section 230

US legal legislation of Internet sites

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionSep 15, 2026
Entity authorityQ16191934 ↗
Source-derived summary

In the United States, Section 230 is a section of the Communications Act of 1934 that was enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which is Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and generally provides immunity for online computer services with respect to third-party content generated by their users.

At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

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) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the voluntary good faith removal or moderation of third-party material the operator "considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Passed when Internet use was just starting to expand in both breadth of services and range of consumers in the United States, Section 230 has frequently been referred to as a key law which allowed the Internet to develop.

Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against online discussion platforms in the early 1990s that resulted in conflicting interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers (as held in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.), or merely as distributors of content created by their users (as held in Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.). The section's authors, Representatives Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden, believed interactive computer services should be treated as distributors, not liable for the content they distributed, as a means to protect the then-growing Internet. Section 230 was enacted via the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996.

Editorial summary

“Section 230” enters the record as uS legal legislation of Internet sites. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Section, legal and legislation can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA concise reference frame for defining the subject, testing terminology and identifying the institution closest to the evidence. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1934, 1996—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Section, legal and legislation.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Section 230” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Section, legal and legislation provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 15, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16191934. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1934 and 1996.

Critical limits

A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Section 230”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Section 230 primary sources, Section 230 archive and Section research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Section 230”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Section 230” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.