When then-U.S. Representative Chris Cox (R-CA) and U.S. Representative Ron Wyden (D-OR) drafted what would later become Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, they set out to create the liability rules that would govern user-created content in America. They wanted to construct a predictable legal environment that allowed websites to host user content without fear of the trial bar bearing down on billions of posts per day.
Three decades later, as the debate over Section 230 continues, it is valuable to look back at the authors’ own words to understand their intent. Below is a list of quotes from interviews, floor speeches, testimonies and op-eds that illuminate Cox and Wyden’s original vision.
Chris Cox:
- “It will establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the Federal Government of what is on the Internet, that we do not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet because frankly the Internet has grown up to be what it is without that kind of help from the Government. In this fashion we can encourage what is right now the most energetic technological revolution that any of us has ever witnessed.” – House Floor Speech, August 4, 1995
- “We named our bill the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, to describe its two main components: protecting speech and privacy on the Internet from government regulation, and incentivizing blocking and filtering technologies that individuals could use to become their own censors in their own households.” – Op-ed “Policing the Internet: A Bad Idea in 1996 — and Today” (2020)
- “A legal standard that protected only websites where ‘anything goes’ from unlimited liability for user-generated content would have been a body blow to the internet itself. Rep. Wyden and I were determined that good faith content moderation should not be punished, and so the Good Samaritan provision in the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act was born.” – Richmond Journal of Law and Technology article “The Origins and Original Intent of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” (2020)
- “Creating a legal environment hospitable to user-created content required that Congress strike the right balance between opportunity and responsibility. Section 230 is such a balance — holding content creators liable for illegal activity while protecting internet platforms from liability for content created entirely by others. Most important to understanding the operation of Section 230 is that it does not protect platforms liable when they are complicit — even if only in part — in the creation or development of illegal content.” – Richmond Journal of Law and Technology article “The Origins and Original Intent of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” (2020)
- “If you have rules for new startups that limit their ability to form an online community as they see fit…good luck with most of the quote ‘reforms’ to Section 230…because you’re going to have to carry all sorts of content that you disagree with, and then your community can’t form.” – “A Conversation with the Honorable Chris Cox and Jessica Melugin on Section 230” (2023)
- “We wrote the legislation with a view to making it adaptable and hospitable to the entire global community… The basis for legal liability that Section 230 set out became in the early days of the internet the basis for planetary communication.” – FIRE, So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast Ep. 221: “Section 230 co-author, Rep. Christopher Cox” (2024)
- “And the simple way of explaining the ramifications of that [the Senate version of the bill] is that only things that were fit for children would be found on the internet. That was a great challenge to many of us in the House at the time who thought that we would be destroying the potential of the internet for education, for the spreading of medical information, for all the wonderful things that we take advantage of today if we dumbed it down to a child’s level.” – FIRE, So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast Ep. 221: “Section 230 co-author, Rep. Christopher Cox” (2024)
Ron Wyden:
- “Two years ago, Congressman Cox and I came together to try to lay out a policy for the Internet that would keep the Federal government’s hands off this dynamic new technology. At that time, we joined forces to fight attempts to have the Federal Government regulate pornography on the Net. We wanted to allow the ingenuity of the private sector to provide the solutions.” – “Statement on the Internet Tax Freedom Act” (1997)
- “For these companies, Section 230 is a sword and shield. It offers protection from liability, but it also gives companies the power — and the responsibility — to foster the sort of internet Americans want to be part of.” – “Floor Remarks: CDA 230 and SESTA” (2018)
- “One core part of the law, the so-called ’26 words that created the internet’ that really stands for one simple proposition. And that is the individual who created a piece of content online, is the person responsible for it…So for all of us users, Section 230 is what allows sites to host controversial speech. That is the speech that we really care about, the speech that propels progress, supports democracy.” – “Public Interest: Proceed with Caution” Event Keynote Remarks (2023)
- “My goal with 230 is protecting two groups: First, users, who want to be able to speak online… And second, the startups and small sites that want to compete with the incumbents.” – “Wyden Remarks at Section 230 Briefing Hosted by EFF” (2023)
Reflecting on three decades of commentary, it is clear that Cox and Wyden’s vision for Section 230 was to be a framework meant to foster innovation and personal responsibility, placing the burden on you for the content you post while protecting the digital infrastructure that allows your voice to be heard. The law was built on a foundation of optimism regarding the private sector’s ability to manage the digital landscape. Cox and Wyden foresaw that heavy-handed regulation would stifle the internet’s explosive growth, and instead opted for a tort reform for platforms and users to govern their own online experiences.
As lawmakers today consider sunsets or repeals, these insights serve as a crucial reminder that the original goal was to maximize user control and free expression, protecting the internet from the very bureaucracy that could have brought such innovation to a screeching halt.