In Ryan v. X Corp., a Northern District of California court held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized ...

Part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 provides immunity to websites that publish third-party content. Proponents assert that Section 230 supports free speech and the social ...

A district judge initially dismissed the case, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which shields online platforms from liability for content posted on their sites.

The question the Supreme Court will need to answer is whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 still shields tech companies from liability for the content on their platforms ...

Broadcasters are publishers. Is TikTok? Social-media companies flourished under the protection of Section 230 of the ...

President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order (EO) titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” ...

What Hughes does not discuss, and what too often goes unremarked on in discussions of Big Tech’s power, is how a special government privilege, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ...

The SPEECH Act also protects online service providers by requiring that foreign libel judgments also comply with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which insulates these providers from ...

Diamond dismissed the suit, ruling that TikTok was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act -- a 1996 law that generally immunizes web companies from liability over material ...

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 has been called the “Internet’s First Amendment.” It’s also been called a tool for Big Tech to avoid accountability. Now, the U.S ...

The Supreme Court has shown unusual self-awareness in addressing Section 230 and said that since they aren't even close to being internet experts, deciding the future of the web should probably be ...