From the Victorian Internet to Section 230: Journalistic Discourse, Government Regulation, and New Communications Technology

Abstract

This study explores the role of mainstream media commentary in reflecting and shaping public opinion on the regulation of interactive communication online. It uses textual analysis to examine newspaper commentary on Section 230 leading up to the only two Supreme Court cases to challenge this controversial statute. The cases are ACLU v. Reno, argued in 1997, and Gonzalez v. Google, argued in 2023. This study analyzes six months of commentary, leading up to oral arguments in each case, from three major publications: The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Widely considered the first draft of history, journalistic discourse offers insight into how public perception of online communication has shifted over time. A qualitative textual analysis of newspaper commentary focused on the Section 230 statute of the reformed 1934 Communications Act found three dominant themes: a collective recognition of content harms, polarization on content moderation policy, and an overall politicization of First Amendment jurisprudence. Debate over the decision to keep or revoke Section 230 touches each of these three themes. This study also situates the current debate over online communication into the long history of government regulation of new media technologies. From its regulation of the telegraph to the internet, U.S. telecommunications law remains the pre-eminent legal framework governing each iteration of communications technology. Revisiting this history is important to understanding modern debates around the sufficiency of this old law to govern new technology.