What exactly is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and why is a 1996 law so important today? Why have Presidents Biden and Trump both said they want to repeal it? Was it to blame when Twitter and Facebook banned Trump from their platforms, or was it the reason they didn’t ban him sooner?

Join policy analysts from the world’s leading tech policy think tank as they break down one of the most contentious debates about free speech, intermediary liability, and the future of the Internet. Ellysse and Ashley Break the Internet takes a deep dive into the ins and outs of Section 230, providing fresh insights and new perspectives with leading policy experts, advisers, and advocates from across the political spectrum.

This 12-episode series asks what will happen if policymakers keep or repeal the law credited with creating the Internet and explores the opportunities for Congress to make the law even better.

The first two episodes will drop on Wednesday, February 24. New episodes will follow in pairs every week.

Cathy Gellis, veteran Internet professional-turned-lawyer working in the intersection of technology and civil liberties, joins Ellysse and Ashley to explain what Section 230 is, what it does, why it has attracted so much attention and controversy, and what the key players in the debate are saying.

Mentioned:

• Cathy Gellis, “If We’re Going To Talk About Discrimination In Online Ads, We Need To Talk About Roommates.com,” Techdirt, February 19, 2021.
• Cathy Gellis, “How To Think About Online Ads And Section 230,” Techdirt, February 10, 2021.
• Fair Hous. Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, 521 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
• Cathy Gellis, “Section 230 Isn’t A Subsidy; It’s A Rule Of Civil Procedure,” Techdirt, December 29, 2020.

Related

• Ashley Johnson and Daniel Castro, “Overview of Section 230: What It Is, Why It Was Created, and What It Has Achieved” (ITIF, February 2021).

Patrick Carome, one of the leading advocates in Section 230 litigation famous for representing AOL in the landmark Section 230 case, Zeran v. AOL, joins Ellysse and Ashley to explore the history behind Section 230, Congress' intentions in passing it, and the foundational case that set the precedent for how courts interpret it.

Mentioned:

• Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
• Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., No. 31063/94, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 24, 1995).
• Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

Related:

• Ashley Johnson and Daniel Castro, “The Exceptions to Section 230: How Have Courts Interpreted Section 230?” (ITIF, February 2021).