Interpret Section 230 to remove immunities courts have added
What the document says“Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.”
Section 230 shields online platforms from liability for content posted by users. The chapter says the reforms should track a July 2020 rulemaking petition filed near the end of the Trump Administration, and that the agency can clarify that the protection applies only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. It also asks the agency to work with Congress on more fundamental reform so that internet companies no longer have what it calls carte blanche to censor protected speech while keeping their protections, including applying antidiscrimination provisions to hosting and denial-of-service protection companies.
What the document actually says“Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute.”
Courts have read this law broadly. The agency should issue an order cutting that back.
A 1996 law protects websites from being sued over what users post. Courts have read it widely. The book says the agency should narrow it.
The chapter records its own internal disagreement here. It states that the views expressed are not shared uniformly by all conservatives, and that some, including contributors to this chapter, do not think the agency or Congress should regulate the content-moderation decisions of private platforms, on the grounds that doing so would intrude unlawfully on the First Amendment rights of corporations to exclude content from their private platforms.
Read against the documents indexed here on August 26, 2026, and nothing was found that answers this. Nothing indexed comes close. No candidate mentions section 230 or platform liability, and none is an action of the Federal Communications Commission. The candidates returned here concern an international organization designation, environmental review exclusions, Medicaid, immigration court fees and labor arbitration panels. That is a record of a search, not a finding that nothing has happened: an act this site does not hold, or one that answers the proposal in words unlike its own, would not be caught by it.