In a recent interview with CNN, former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reignited the debate surrounding Section 230, calling for its complete repeal. The law, enacted in 1996, has long been a pillar of internet regulation, providing immunity for online platforms that host user-generated content. Clinton’s comments come as part of her campaign efforts on behalf of Vice President Kamala Harris.

During the interview with CNN’s Michael Smerconish, Clinton expressed concern about the harmful content on social media platforms, particularly its impact on children. “We need national action,” Clinton said, emphasizing that Section 230 was created under what she described as an “overly simple view” of how the internet would evolve. She argued that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) must be held accountable for not moderating and monitoring content effectively.

“We lose total control if they don’t moderate,” Clinton warned, further noting, “It’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm. It’s child porn, threats of violence, and other things that are terribly dangerous.”

Clinton’s call to repeal Section 230 is part of a broader push from both sides of the political spectrum, with both Donald Trump and Joe Biden having voiced similar positions during the 2020 presidential election. However, her comments have sparked backlash, especially among those who view Section 230 as essential to maintaining free speech on the internet.

The law Clinton is targeting, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, shields internet platforms from liability for user-generated content, except in certain instances such as criminal activity. Initially crafted to promote free expression online, it allows platforms to moderate content without being held responsible for every post made by users. However, Clinton argued that the law’s protections allow platforms to evade responsibility for harmful content.

Her position has drawn concern from advocates of free speech and digital rights, who argue that repealing the law would result in platforms being less likely to moderate content out of fear of legal liability, leading to a potential chilling effect on free expression.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, a journalist for Reason magazine, pushed back against Clinton’s claims, stating that removing Section 230 wouldn’t lead to greater moderation but would make platforms more likely to shy away from it altogether.

“If you create more liability for something, you get less of it,” Brown noted. “Repealing Section 230 would result in less moderation, not more.”

Clinton’s stance on Section 230, according to critics, reflects a common misunderstanding of the law. Supporters of Section 230 argue that the law encourages platforms to engage in moderation, as it shields them from legal responsibility when they make efforts to remove harmful or inappropriate content.

Brown likened it to other communication tools: “If people use a telephone to hatch criminal plans, we don’t arrest the phone company. If I send a threatening letter in the mail, you can’t sue the postal service.”

This legal shield has allowed platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram to grow into the global giants they are today, while maintaining some degree of content moderation. Without Section 230, critics warn, these platforms could either be forced to over-moderate, removing vast amounts of content to avoid lawsuits, or to avoid moderating content entirely, leading to increased harmful material online.

The debate over Section 230 crosses party lines. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have voiced frustration with the law, though for different reasons. Conservatives have accused platforms of silencing right-wing voices, claiming that Section 230 allows for unfair censorship. Meanwhile, liberals, including Clinton, argue that platforms aren’t doing enough to curb harmful content like misinformation and hate speech.

The Trump administration made a failed attempt to repeal Section 230 during the former president’s final days in office, attaching the measure to an unrelated bill. President Biden has also called for the law’s repeal, though no comprehensive plan has been advanced in Congress.

Clinton’s recent comments signal a renewed interest in taking action against what she and others see as unchecked power among tech giants. While calls for reform are growing louder, any potential changes to Section 230 will require careful balancing between holding platforms accountable for harmful content and preserving free speech online.

As discussions about Section 230 continue, Clinton’s remarks reflect a broader concern over the role of tech companies in shaping modern communication and the potential risks they pose to public safety, particularly when it comes to vulnerable populations like children. However, the path forward remains complex, with numerous voices on both sides of the debate calling for different approaches to regulating the online world.

For now, Section 230 remains intact, but Clinton’s latest push is a clear sign that the debate over its future is far from settled.