Question Everything – "The Funky Court Ruling That Led to the Modern Internet"

Host: Brian Reed
Guest: Jeff Kossif
Date: December 18, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the origins and long-lasting impact of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—a foundational law that has shaped the modern Internet by giving online platforms immunity from liability for most user content. Host Brian Reed explores how a little-known, quirky court case, combined with 1990s moral panic about kids and online smut, led to the creation of Section 230. Reed is joined by Jeff Kossif, journalist, lawyer, and author of "The 26 Words that Created the Internet," to unravel this rarely-told origin story and debate its relevance and risks today as Congress considers its repeal.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Section 230: Coming Into the Spotlight

• Congressional Attention: Recent bipartisan calls to repeal Section 230, especially in the context of children's online safety.
• Senator Whitehouse quote:

  "It is now a real vessel for evil that needs to come to an end." (Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, 00:28)

• Anniversary Moment: Lawmakers are pushing for a legislative move by the 30th anniversary of Section 230's passage in February.

2. The 1990s Internet Context

• Early Internet Innocence: Reed recalls how the Internet seemed novel and confusing in its infancy, referencing a "Today Show" clip with hosts fumbling over basic questions about email and "the Internet" (02:21–02:42).

  "It all seems so innocent, even quaint, through the lens of time. I mean, no one had any idea how the world was about to change." (A, 02:42)

• Seed for Section 230: Open platforms with little moderation versus an increasing social and political call to "clean up" the Internet.

3. The Funky Court Case: Prodigy vs. Stratton Oakmont

• Wolf of Wall Street Connection: The investment firm in question, Stratton Oakmont, was the same one later depicted in "The Wolf of Wall Street."
• The Lawsuit: Stratton Oakmont sued Prodigy for defamation after an anonymous message board post accused them of fraud (08:03–09:07).
• Publisher vs. Distributor Debate:
  • CompuServe (hands-off) was NOT held liable.
  • Prodigy (moderated, "family-friendly") WAS held liable by a Long Island state judge because its moderation meant it bore responsibility for posts.

  "If you're an Internet company and you try to make your platform safer ... we're going to punish you, essentially by making it easier for people to sue you." (A, 13:09)

• Unintended Consequence: The ruling perversely discouraged moderation, creating a legal incentive for platforms to NOT police their own content.

4. The Political Backdrop: The 1990s "Porn Panic"

• Senator James Exxon's "Blue Book":
  Exxon's campaign to remove indecent material from the Internet, going so far as to print pornographic images in black and white and carry them around the Senate in a blue binder (15:13–15:31).

  "I have here what I refer to as the Blue Book ... There has been shock registered, obviously, on the face of my colleagues." (D, 15:39)

• Controversy: While the Senate backed Exxon's restrictive proposals, the House pushed back, citing First Amendment concerns.

5. The Birth of Section 230: The Legislative Compromise

• Cox and Wyden's Intervention: Republican Chris Cox and Democrat Ron Wyden, both from tech-heavy districts, devised Section 230 as a legal compromise, encouraging platforms to moderate without fear of liability.

  "Imagine if that were the law. We can all think of what the perverse incentives would be in the future ... It was a prescription for turning every online platform ... into a vulgar and dangerous place." (E, 18:19)

• The Famous 26 Words:

  "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." (B, 06:34 & summarized at 20:27)

• Good Samaritan Provision: Platforms were also protected when making “good faith” efforts to restrict objectionable content (21:08–21:35).

6. The Quirky Outcome: How Section 230 Passed

• Legislative Maneuvering: Section 230 was largely overlooked compared to the more sensational "Blue Book" anti-porn provisions.
• Court Drama Revisited: The Prodigy ruling, which helped inspire Section 230, was actually a one-off, non-precedential opinion by a "clearly flawed" Long Island judge, Justice Stuart Ain, with questionable behavior and ethics (24:37–25:45).

  "This was one clearly flawed judge making one ruling ... where decisions aren't binding on anyone else in the country. And yet his ruling was one of the main motivators for Congress to design Section 230." (A & B, 25:50–26:10)

• Irony: Section 230’s sweeping impact came as a result of panic over a ruling that may not have mattered if left alone.

7. Section 230's Afterlife: What if it Vanished?

• Modern Internet Problems: Platforms now prioritize growth and engagement, leading to polarization, misinformation, and other abuses, stoking calls for reform or repeal.
• Debate—Host vs. Guest:
  • Reed is critical, supports reform, and worries about platform accountability.
  • Kossif defends Section 230, warning about unintended consequences of repeal, especially for small entities and individual speakers.
• Kossif’s Counterarguments:
  • Not just "big tech"— Section 230 protects small sites, news forums, community boards, blogs, etc.
  • Without 230, platforms would have to ban comments, restrict speech, and small players would be especially vulnerable to lawsuits (31:31–34:09).

  "Without Section 230, you're not going to have that former employee or the customer who is ripped off by a car mechanic. They're not going to have an outlet to go speak to." (B, 34:09)

  • Glassdoor, Yelp: Sites dependent on user reviews would likely disappear or be forced to heavily censor.

8. The Present Debate and Possible Paths Forward

• Current Calls for Repeal: Bipartisan support for a reassessment or outright repeal due to “harms caused by all of this” (see Amy Klobuchar at 35:31).
• Cautionary Notes:
  • Both Reed and Kossif acknowledge the difficulty in balancing holding platforms accountable with preserving free speech.
  • Reed: “I’ll cop to some jitters when I hear senators stridently demanding full repeal of Section 230 without also talking about how they’re going to protect speech.” (35:56)
• To Be Continued: Reed hints at future episodes exploring practical reform proposals for Section 230.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

On Why Section 230 Was Needed

• "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."
  — Jeff Kossif, 06:34

On the Perverse Incentives of the Prodigy Ruling

• "If you're an Internet company and you try to make your platform safer ... we're going to punish you, essentially by making it easier for people to sue you."
  — Brian Reed, 13:09

On the Odd Judge Behind It All

• "Didn't he give the guy the finger?...He asked him his ethnicity. When the guy said he was Arab, the judge said from the bench, 'You're our sworn enemies.' And then ultimately gave him the middle finger from the bench and said, 'What the fuck do you people want anyway?'"
  — Brian Reed, referencing Jeff Kossif's book, 25:16

On Small Platforms’ Vulnerability Without Section 230

• "This idea that it's for Internet companies is just not correct. I'll give an example of Glassdoor ... They're able to do that because of Section 230."
  — Jeff Kossif, 31:31

On the First Amendment’s Role

• "Well, I think you're not appreciating the First Amendment very much. Without Section 230, you're not going to have that former employee or the customer who is ripped off by a car mechanic. They're not going to have an outlet to go speak to."
  — Jeff Kossif, 34:06

Senator Amy Klobuchar’s Rallying Cry

• "It's long past time to repeal Section 230. I had thought, well, no, maybe we can put ... these rules in place and the tech companies will work with us. And that just hasn't happened— the opposite has happened. And as we approach this 30 year anniversary, maybe it's time to do a major assessment, which takes for any parent about one minute to realize the harm that has been caused by all of this."
  — Senator Amy Klobuchar, 35:31

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:01–02:41: Reed introduces Section 230's current controversy, nostalgia for early Internet
• 06:28–07:21: Jeff Kossif recites Section 230’s 26 words and explains their impact
• 08:03–13:09: Re-telling of the Prodigy case and the perverse incentive against moderation
• 14:36–16:42: Senator Exxon's “porn panic” and the Blue Book campaign
• 18:10–21:35: Cox and Wyden's legislative fix—origins of Section 230’s text and intent
• 24:37–26:28: Examination of the surprising lack of legal precedent and the eccentric judge
• 28:13–35:30: Present-day debate: Should Section 230 be reformed or repealed? Kossif's defense and Reed's challenge
• 35:31–35:56: Senator Klobuchar calls for repeal; Reed expresses caution and plans for future episodes

Takeaway

The episode offers an engaging, accessible unpacking of Section 230’s history, showing how one oddball case and a panicked Congress shaped the foundation of the modern Internet. Reed and Kossif expose the law's unintended consequences, its critical role in safeguarding free online speech—not just for tech giants but for ordinary Internet users and small publishers. With calls for drastic reform or repeal growing louder, the episode urges caution and an informed approach—recognizing that protecting speech and fighting online harms is a tightrope, not a truncheon.

For More Discussion:

• Visit the show’s Substack: everything.substack.com
• DM Brian Reed on Instagram: @brihread
• Read Jeff Kossif’s book: The 26 Words that Created the Internet