Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstalliTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The Communications Decency Act (CDA) is the common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It included online indecency restrictions later invalidated in part by the Supreme Court, as well as Section 230, a separate provision that remains in the U.S. Code and limits certain liability for third-party content and good-faith moderation.
What does the Communications Decency Act mean?
The CDA is a 1996 federal law title that amended the Communications Act of 1934. It is not another name for Section 230, even though people often use “CDA” informally when discussing that section.
![Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/416BB956AZL._SL160_.jpg)
![Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/31LOLL7Zn6L._SL160_.jpg)
Section 230 was enacted as part of the CDA, but it is codified in the Communications Act at 47 U.S.C. §230. Its short title in the current U.S. Code is “Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material.”
Is Section 230 the same as the CDA?
No. The CDA is the broader legislative title; Section 230 is one of its provisions. That distinction matters because the CDA also included separate restrictions on certain online material, and the Supreme Court later invalidated the challenged restrictions without striking down Section 230.
#1 Best Overall
What does Section 230 do?
Section 230 contains two distinct provisions often discussed in relation to online services:
- Third-party content: Under §230(c)(1), a provider or user of an interactive computer service generally may not be treated as the publisher or speaker of information supplied by another information content provider.
- Blocking and screening: Under §230(c)(2), the law addresses certain good-faith actions to restrict access to or availability of material a provider considers objectionable.
The statute defines an “interactive computer service” broadly to include services or systems that provide or enable multiple users to access a computer server. It expressly includes Internet access services and services operated by libraries or educational institutions. An “information content provider” is a person or entity responsible, in whole or in part, for creating or developing information supplied through the Internet or another interactive computer service.
These provisions do not amount to blanket immunity for every website, claim, or kind of content. The statute has boundaries and exceptions, and whether it applies depends on the claim and facts.
Was the Communications Decency Act ruled unconstitutional?
Not in its entirety. In Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court held that the CDA’s challenged restrictions on indecent transmissions and patently offensive displays to minors violated the First Amendment. The Court’s syllabus states: “The CDA’s ‘indecent transmission’ and ‘patently offensive display’ provisions abridge ‘the freedom of speech’ protected by the First Amendment.”
The decision concerned those challenged restrictions; it did not erase Section 230 from the U.S. Code. Section 230 remains codified at 47 U.S.C. §230.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What are Section 230’s limits?
Section 230 contains express exceptions and savings clauses. Its text preserves enforcement of federal criminal laws and addresses intellectual-property law, communications privacy law, and specified civil claims involving sex trafficking. The statutory provisions do not resolve every dispute automatically: applying them requires attention to the particular claim, facts, and controlling law in the relevant jurisdiction.
Rank #4
For the statutory wording, consult the current text of 47 U.S.C. §230. The Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU is available from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
