About Protect Online Voices
Protect Online Voices is a movement of advocates, think tanks, and businesses with a simple but powerful goal— protect free speech and free enterprise online by protecting Section 230.
Protect Online Voices recognizes the critical role that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act plays in making these opportunities possible.
PROTECT ONLINE VOICES’ APPROACH IS STRAIGHTFORWARD:
Educate lawmakers on what Section 230 says
Misinformation about Section 230 is common. Protect Online Voices works to educate lawmakers and interested parties about what Section 230 actually says and how it’s been interpreted by the courts.
01Illustrate the vast benefits of Section 230
Section 230 has vastly benefitted our society, from digital free speech to free enterprise online. Protect Online Voices articulates these benefits together, showing what would be at stake if Section 230 is undermined.
02Connect Section 230 advocates with resources to amplify their voices
Not all supporters of Section 230 have the resources they need to make their voices heard. Protect Online Voices connects advocates of Section 230 with what they need so we can work together to protect tomorrow’s internet today.
03PROTECT ONLINE VOICES ADVOCATES FOR
Section 230 Supporters Include…




“By ensuring that responsibility for online speech lies with the speaker, Section 230 allows the Internet to thrive as an economic and cultural platform. This unique law is the reason American platforms are the global leaders communication, business and entertainment. Section 230 is especially important for small businesses and startups, who otherwise would face a barrage of nuisance lawsuits from all corners of the Internet.” — Michael Petricone

“Section 230 has enabled the growth of user-generated content, which in turn has empowered the conservative movement in the modern age. Section 230 plays a vital role in advancing speech and entrepreneurship in America today.” — Grace Morgan, Director of External Relations


Andrew Bridges
Fenwick and West LLP“Section 230 has been beneficial by keeping the focus of responsibility for wrongdoing on the Internet on the wrongdoers. Section 230 does not protect those who create harms on the Internet. It protects persons and services, who get their information and material from others, from lawsuits and liabilities for relaying what others have said. That includes, for example, individuals who might face lawsuits or liability merely for forwarding an email from someone else. Without Section 230, every participant in the online ecosystem would face nuisance litigation and potential liabilities based on a failure to investigate and vouch for every statement by everyone else that they either relay or allow onto their service.”


“Section 230 has been instrumental to enabling free speech online for over 20 years. Understanding how it works, and why it matters, should be a prerequisite for any of today’s policy debates about content moderation, disinformation, or other online speech issues.” — Sharon Bradford Franklin



Eric Goldman
Santa Clara University School of Law“The reason Section 230 came into existence in the first place was to encourage tech companies in the early days of the web to remove objectionable content, with the promise that they wouldn’t be held liable if they happened to screw up in the process.”

“Section 230 preserves that individuals, not the tools they use, are legally responsible for harmful behavior online. Section 230 is not a shield for those who break the law online and the Department of Justice can still prosecute anyone who violates federal criminal law, whether on a website or not. As we’ve seen recently, European and Chinese standards of free speech are increasingly being adopted by American companies. From that standpoint, it’s more important than ever that Congress protect free speech. Eroding 230’s critical protections sets up a scenario where political powers dictate what is fair or unfair when it comes to free expression online. That should startle everyone.” — Billy Easley


Daphne Keller
Stanford School of Law“CDA 230 has important upsides, including benefits for online free expression and for innovation and competition against today’s incumbent Internet platforms.”


“Repealing or deeply undercutting Section 230 would most likely produce a stampede of litigation against tech platforms, which might respond, in part, by curtailing their openness to user content. One perverse result might be that the dominance of today’s players would be locked in.” — Jim Harper





“Everyone who thinks seriously about the issues implicated by Section 230 can—and should—agree that it has been instrumental in the birth and growth of the Internet as we know it—both the immense good and the unanticipated bad. Efforts to update Section 230 should not deny its past successes, ignore reasonable concerns, nor co-opt the process to score costly political points. It is incumbent upon those seeking reform to offer ideas and proposals that reflect the reality and the complexity of the world they seek to regulate.” — Bartlett Cleland




The Innovators Network Foundation is committed to research and the pursuit of innovative solutions for students and entrepreneurs around the world. IN advises governments and educational institutions on technology and trends while partnering with non-profits and commercial innovators to explore solutions for the short (labor mobility), medium (infrastructure, education), and long (education) terms. – Jonathan Zuck





Professor Jonathan Zittrain
Harvard Law School“It would be good for [supporters of weakening Section 230] to engage seriously with the non-trivial objections that are meant to support freedom of expression online.”

“Nowhere in America has free speech thrived more in recent years than on the Internet. Members of Congress should resist trying to indirectly police speech practices they have no business regulating in the first place. Government intrusion on the Internet chills innovation and inevitably leads to unintended consequences.” — Andrew Langer, President