Communications Decency Act, Section 230

Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
November 6, 2022
Communications Decency Act, Section 230
Understanding the circumstances surrounding an alleged defamatory act and the law that punishes it is essential for everyone. It allows him to better appreciate how the law punishes these actions and even how to protect oneself from claims arising from it. In the case provided, it could be seen that what changed after the passage of Section 230 was the persons who could be punished with defamation as well as the nature of their liabilities.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act explicitly provides "immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances." This is to protect online platforms from the number of users and the high probability of posting obscene, threatening, or defamatory content information within their platforms.
Accordingly, Section 577 of the act specifically provides the two means of "publication," which falls under the concept of defamation, namely; (1) "Publication of defamatory matter is its communication intentionally or by a negligent act to one other than the person defamed" or (2) "intentionally and unreasonably fails to remove defamatory matter that he knows to be exhibited on land or chattels in his possession or under his control is subject to liability for its continued publication." Additionally, Sections 578 and 581 of the same act punish those who are considered Republishers and Transmitters, respectively.
In line with the case at hand, it could be argued that the restatement of Section 230 would punish Clark Kent and Daily Planet.
First, Clark Kent is the perpetrator of the crime of defamation, which was committed through his act of publishing the said material. He is the primary perpetrator, and thus, his liability has not changed despite the restatement of Section 230.
Second, the Daily Pl...