If you take a deep dive into the archives of C-SPAN, back to Aug. 4, 1995, you can find a video that many would argue was the day that the foundation was laid for our modern internet.
The video features a series of votes on amendments to a law that would become the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Almost four hours into the day’s coverage of the U.S. House is a short interview with one of the sponsors of a portion of the law known as Section 230.
In it, then-Rep. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, explained his reasoning behind the amendment. He focused on concerns of keeping children safe, and how he thought it was better to let the private sector be the regulator of speech on the internet.
“I have two small children, and I want to make darn sure that they don’t see all of this smut and obscenity that comes off of the internet,” he told C-SPAN. “But the way to do it is not to try and set up a government censorship army, but to use these exciting new technologies that are available in the private sector to block this kind of pornography off the ‘net.”
The amendment, which was co-sponsored by Rep. Chris Cox–a Republican from California–passed on a 420-4 vote.
The amendment eventually added the following language to the law.
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Today, now-Sen. Wyden stands by those words.
“What we said is that individuals who post on the internet are responsible for that content, not the people who run the platform,” he told KLCC in a recent interview. “And even then, we realized that platforms would have scores and scores of messages, so we added a provision that said, in effect, it was important that they moderate to the greatest extent possible, but individuals would be personally responsible.”
More than a dozen bills that would either repeal or alter Section 230 have been introduced during the current session of Congress. Wyden worries that such efforts could minimize free speech.
“The big guys are interested in doing it, but the people who speak for those who need the First Amendment (support Section 230),” he said. “The ACLU has been supportive of our position. The people who don't have power, don't have clout, don't have political action committees, they're with me.”
Wyden sees the internet as a democratizer, allowing people from all walks of life a way to share information and opinion that is often reserved for the wealthy.
“The big guys always have enough money to take care of their communication needs,” he said. “And in fact, probably the single biggest difference between [President Donald Trump’s first term] and [his second term] is that after Trump won, it was clear. Donald Trump went out to all his buddies and said, ‘I want you to control the media.’ And they bought up practically everything in sight.”
Wyden said that the ethos that guided Rep. Cox and himself when writing Section 230 should be remembered during discussions about changing the law.
“We said number one, we're going to ensure protection of the First Amendment and people's right to be heard, but we're also going to say the big guys should do more to moderate and moderate the filth,” he said. “And so we made it clear that there was an obligation to do that.”
Cox was not able to grant KLCC an interview. A message from his wife stated that he was in the hospital being treated for a recurrence of cancer.
Wyden said he does agree that some areas that claim to have Section 230 protections need to be clarified, particularly around the algorithms that govern what everything from Google to TikTok show users.
“When it comes to algorithms, we have some real challenges,” he said. “And that’s why I introduced the Algorithm Accountability Act with Rep. Yvette Clarke and Sen. Cory Booker, to make sure we were again dealing with vulnerable groups. So I do have a plan for algorithms, much like I did with Section 230.”
Wyden has introduced the Algorithmic Accountability Act four times: 2019, 2022, 2023 and 2025. It would direct the Federal Trade Commission to require impact assessments from companies that use “automated decision systems and augmented critical decision processes.” It has yet to make it out of committee.
Other bills titled the Algorithm Accountability Act have been introduced in both chambers of Congress, though Wyden is not a sponsor. Both the Senate and House bills feature a Utah congress member as the sponsor with a Democratic co-sponsor.
The nearly-identical bills would “limit liability protection under that section for certain social media platforms, and for other purposes.”
There is one area of Section 230 that Wyden said he would like to see cleared up: its coverage of artificial intelligence tools that can create content, like X’s Grok, Google Gemini or Microsoft Copilot.
“People have asked about deep fakes and the like, and people said, ‘Well, does Section 230 apply?’ I said, ‘No, it's not Section 230 because all the new communication is generative,’” he said.
He said the fact that such tools create content rather than host content created by others is what sets it apart.
