It is said that censorship is the strongest drive in human nature — with sex being a weak second.

But what happens when these two primordial drives clash? Does censorship or sex win out?

Nadine Strossen is a professor emerita at New York Law School, a former president of the ACLU, and a senior fellow at FIRE. She is also the author of “Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights.” First released in 1995, the book was reissued this year with a new preface.

Mary Anne Franks is a law professor at George Washington University and the president and legislative and tech policy director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. She is the author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech” and the forthcoming “Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment.”

Timestamps
0:00 Intro
2:17 Defining pornography
7:20 Is porn protected by the First Amendment?
11:10 Revenge porn
22:05 Origins of “Defending Pornography”
25:06 Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon
29:20 Can porn be consensual?
35:02 Dworkin/MacKinnon model legislation
52:20 Porn in Canada
56:07 Is it possible to ban porn?
1:03:26 College professor’s porn hobby
1:12:39 Outro

Did 26 words from an American law passed in 1996 create the internet?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act says that interactive websites and applications cannot be held legally liable for the content posted on their sites by their users.

Without the law, it’s likely Facebook, Amazon, Reddit, Yelp, and X wouldn’t exist — at least not in their current form.

But some say the law shields large tech companies from liability for enabling, or even amplifying, harmful content.

On today’s show, we discuss Section 230, recent efforts to reform it, and new proposals for content moderation on the internet.

Marshall Van Alstyne is a professor of information systems at Boston University.

Robert Corn-Revere is FIRE’s chief counsel.

Timestamps

0:00 Intro
3:52 The origins of Section 230?
6:40 Section 230’s “forgotten provision”
13:29 User vs. platform control over moderation
23:24 Harms allegedly enabled by Section 230
40:17 Solutions
46:03 Private market for moderation
1:02:42 Case study: Hunter Biden laptop story
1:09:19 “Duty of care” standard
1:17:49 The future of Section 230
1:20:35 Outro

Show Notes

- Show Transcript

- Hearing on a Legislative Proposal to Sunset Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (May 22. 2024)

- “Platform Revolution” by Marshall Van Alstyne

- “The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder” by Robert Corn-Revere

- “Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech” by Mike Masnick

- “Sunset of Section 230 Would Force Big Tech’s Hand” By Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Frank Pallone Jr.

- “Buy This Legislation or We’ll Kill the Internet” By Christopher Cox and Ron Wyden

- “Free Speech, Platforms & The Fake News Problem” (2021) by Marshall Van Alstyne

- “Free Speech and the Fake News Problem” (2023) by Marshall Van Alstyne

- “It’s Time to Update Section 230” by Michael D. Smith and Marshall Van Alstyne

“Now It's Harvard Business Review Getting Section 230 Very, Very Wrong” by Mike Masnick

The First Amendment forbids government censorship. Private institutions, on the other hand, are generally free to restrict speech.

How should we think about private censorship and its role within a liberal society?

On today’s episode, we’re joined by J.P. Messina, an assistant professor in the philosophy department at Purdue University and the author of the new book, “Private Censorship.”

Also on the show is Aaron Terr, FIRE’s director of public advocacy.

Timestamps

0:00 Introduction

3:10 The origin story of “Private Censorship”

8:29 How does FIRE figure out what to weigh in on?

12:04 Examples of private censorship

18:24 Regulating speech at work

22:21 Regulating speech on social media platforms

30:09 Is social media essentially a public utility?

35:50 Are internet service providers essentially public utilities?

44:43 Social media vs. ISPs

51:02 Censorship on search engines

59:47 Defining illiberalism outside of government censorship

1:16:06 Outro

Show Notes

Episode transcript

Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)

Cloudflare’s announcement regarding the Daily Stormer