 Hi, I'm Catherine Kloseck, Director of Information Policy at the Association of Research Libraries, ARL. And I'm going to talk about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 law that protects libraries and other interactive computer services from liability for speech posted by third parties. Most of the action around Section 230 is in the Supreme Court, as I'll describe, and I'll talk a little bit about some of the signals that we're watching from the White House and Congress as well. Let's get started by talking about what the law actually says and how it functions. Section 230 is critical to an open internet, and this can't be overstated. Section 230 immunizes interactive computer services, including libraries from liability for content that their users post, including illegal content with some exceptions. And it does this primarily through two clauses. And the first shown here holds that interactive computer services can't be treated as the publisher or speaker of third party content. Section 230 is so foundational to the open internet, as we know it today, that it's referred to as the 26 words that created the internet. The next clause, which is often misunderstood or misrepresented guarantees immunity for interactive computer services that engage in content moderation practices. The meaning of the statute and the legislative history are clear. Congress provided online platforms with the safe harbor against liability when they restrict, edit or delete content with a specific intent of encouraging voluntary content moderation. So you might be wondering why are we talking about this down is in section 230 a special protection for big tech. Section 230 applies to interactive computer services of all sizes, and libraries are included in the statutory definition of interactive computer service, as you can see here. If there's one take away from this presentation. I hope it's that any changes to section 230 live in its liability protection has the potential to endanger the ability of research libraries to fulfill their public service missions. And section 230 touches on a number of values that research libraries and our higher education partners hold intellectual freedom, freedom of speech and equitable access to information. Research libraries rely on section 230 to share and build knowledge and these are the same principles that underlie section 230 and the laws and cases that preceded. Academic libraries often maintain open access repositories where scholars can upload journal articles and book chapters conference proceedings and more research libraries often post oral histories and other content that that's provided by community services. And many research libraries offer crowd sourcing platforms that allow users to tag annotate comment and transcribe materials in their collections. So if I convinced you that section 230 protects speech online and allows libraries to provide online services. Great. Let's talk about the Supreme Court case. For the first time, the US Supreme Court will consider the scope of the safe harbor provided by section 230 of the communications decency act. The issue before the court in the case Gonzalez v Google is whether section 230 protections apply when interactive computer services recommend third party content. The facts of the case involve terrorist content, which is illegal and banned by most terms of service. The second concern in this case is ensuring that libraries can continue to provide services online, and ensuring that online speech is protected. As such, ARL joined a brief, a brief, authored by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF, asking the court to preserve section 230's ability to protect internet user speech. The fact is that hosting and recommending third party content is so fundamental to the way the internet functions at the most basic level. And removing liability protections when platforms recommend or provide a URL linking to content would erode section 230 and harm free speech online. The ability to create and crowdsource knowledge through online platforms and digital repositories as I described a moment ago would be severely curtailed. More broadly, if the court narrows section 230 liability protections, all kinds of online platforms would censor user generated content, negatively affecting a range of online activity, including online education, community engagement, cultural heritage activities, and even worship. On February 21, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, and the court is expected to rule this summer. So for now, all eyes are on the Supreme Court, but that's not the only threat to section 230. Section 230's got a lot of enemies to quote Drake. As I just described, the Supreme Court is likely to narrow the scope of section 230. Even before the court agreed to take up this case, Gonzalez v. Google, Justice Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court must address the proper scope of immunity under section 230, and suggested the lower courts might have interpreted the statute to be overly broad. President Biden called for section 230 reform on the campaign trail, and he mentioned it again last November in a White House listening session on tech platform accountability. Biden re-upped this rhetoric as recently as January 2023 in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. But the president hasn't offered any specifics on what reforms are needed to section 230 or how those reforms can be achieved. And of course the president can't change the law. But section 230 is also routinely under attack by members of Congress. So far, one of the dozens of legislative proposals that members of Congress have introduced over the past several years have gotten any traction. And this is partly because there's no bipartisan consensus on the problem to be solved by potentially reforming section 230. Some lawmakers contend that online platforms hide behind section 230 to unfairly suppress certain viewpoints online. Other lawmakers are concerned that platforms hide behind section 230 to permit the proliferation of hate speech, extremist speech, and misinformation. Most recently, some members of Congress sponsored the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act. This is a bill that would prohibit federal employees from acting in their official capacity and removing or suppressing lawful speech, including speech on interactive computer services. That bill uses the same definition of interactive computer services that we saw in the in the section 230 statute. This bill isn't likely to go anywhere either. And of course government interference in speech is already prohibited by the First Amendment. I think the debate over section 230 illustrates the inherent tension that comes with guaranteeing speech rights to all Americans. Justice Brimmer succinctly summed up this tension in a defamation case against Larry Flynn and Hustler magazine. And I'll just read this quote, the near absolute freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment has its costs. All citizens must live with the realization that every other citizen also has protected rights. Bottom line, once again, any changes to section 230 will affect research libraries and ARL is watching the Supreme Court closely, as well as Congress, and will continue to advocate for an open internet and free speech online. And you can follow along with us using the links found on the screen. Thank you.