As Justice So Requires: Making the Case for a Limited Reading of 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was originally enacted to protect online providers from liability for exercising publishing functions over content posted by third parties on their websites. Since its enactment, courts have expanded the provision and conferred close to absolute immunity to online intermediaries who do not exercise traditional publisher functions, contrary to Congress's intent. Further, the broadest immunity conferred by courts has prevented plaintiffs, particularly victims of online harassment, from receiving rightly deserved legal redress. This Note argues that the current expansive interpretation of 230 is diametrically opposed to Congress's policy goals. It proposes and outlines an interpretation of 230 immunity that resolves the quandary based on the current language of the statute, rather than relying on Congress to close the loophole created by the courts. The elements of the proposed test are rooted in relevant case law and judicial interpretations of 230. The test seeks to return the scope of immunity under 230 back within the realm that Congress intended and to grant justice to unfairly injured plaintiffs.