Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai visited Abilene (KS) Memorial Hospital recently to observe how broadband connects the local emergency department with specialists in South Dakota.  “5G promises speeds that are 100 times as fast as 4G LTE,” Chairman Pai said. “The amount of data that you can send wirelessly will be much greater. Especially in some of these rural communities, 5G could be a significant benefit and not just for telemedicine but for precision agriculture, online education, e-commerce and civic engagement.” Chairman Pai said the FCC has also been focusing on making sure there is both access to the internet and sufficient competition to keep costs down. “That is one of the reasons why the last two years we have focused on bringing new companies in. For example, through the FCC’s subsidy program known as the University Service Fund, we’ve invited other companies to compete for broadband subsidies to build up broadband infrastructure and not just rural telephone companies, cable companies, electric utilities, satellite companies and others,” Chairman Pai said. “Our hope is that kind of competition from other companies using different kinds of technologies will help keep the cost low for residential consumers and heath care facilities like this one.” "I think telemedicine and telehealth solutions are really one of the major positive impacts that broadband availability can have. I am really impressed what Abilene health is able to do in improving patient outcomes, giving people access that they might not otherwise have, reducing costs and otherwise making the community a stronger, healthier place.”

The broad language of Section 230 should not be interpreted in a way that gives platforms that host third-party content a special exemption from laws that apply to businesses generally, or creates an exemption from the kinds of health, safety, public interest, and economic regulation that governments at every level—from federal agencies to municipalities–engage in. To be clear at the outset, this does not mean that any and all regulations a government may want to enforce are good ideas. Some of them might be. Others might be terrible. The point is that 230 shouldn’t be read in a way that rules them out.

That is not to say that the legal arguments that Section 230 does, in fact, preclude some kinds of regulation of online services are trivial. They’re not. Judges have been skeptical of arguments that seek to get around Section 230 in clever ways when it seems like people are just looking for a way to directly impose liability for speech in exactly the ways that Section 230 prohibits. You could easily extend the same logic to policies that impose liability on or otherwise regulate online services, to the extent that there is some indirect effect on third-party content. All I want to argue here is, first, it is not necessary to read 230 in this way, and second, if 230 is interpreted as a broad charter of deregulation for online services, the predictable political response would be for it to be repealed, or statutorily curbed in a way that harms its speech-promoting function. If you love Section 230 you should want it to have clear boundaries.

This is the fourth blog post in a series about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. You can view the full series here.]