Kingsfield · Research · Telecommunications

Does Section 230 protect an interactive computer service from liability for content posted by its users?

Published 2026-06-23 · U.S. federal law

Section 230(c)(1) bars treating a provider or user of an interactive computer service as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.

The answer

The publisher bar

47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) states that 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. This is the core liability shield for platforms that host content created by their users.

Good-faith screening

Section 230(c)(2) separately protects a provider from liability for voluntary, good-faith action taken to restrict access to material it considers objectionable. The two clauses operate independently: subsection (c)(1) addresses hosting third-party content, while (c)(2) addresses removing it.

The judged input

What the AI drafted

Submitted to the judge

This is an excerpt from a draft telecom regulatory compliance memo — the kind of work product a lawyer generates with a legal-AI drafting tool, then has to stand behind. Kingsfield does not write it; it rules on the citations the model put in it. This draft cites two authorities; one of them is wrong.

AI draft excerpt — telecom regulatory compliance memo

The Company hosts a discussion forum where users post their own messages, and asks whether it can be held liable for defamatory posts by those users. Under 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1), no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider, which shields the Company from publisher liability for its users' posts. We further note that liability for the platform's own decision to host such third-party material is foreclosed by 47 U.S.C. § 223. We advise that the Company preserve its status as a host rather than a co-developer of the content.

The judge ruled on every citation as the draft used it — it accepted 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) and rejected 47 U.S.C. § 223. Here is why.

The verdict

How Kingsfield ruled

Ruled 2026-06-23

Each citation in the draft above was submitted to the Kingsfield judge and ruled against the primary-law corpus — Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation. These are live verdicts, not editorial. Each card shows the claim the draft made and the verbatim authority the verdict was rendered against.

Accept47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)

The draft claimed: 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.

“§ 230(a)(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.”

Cite found; proposition supported by the cited text.

Reject47 U.S.C. § 223

The draft claimed: Section 223 provides that an interactive computer service may not be treated as the publisher of content supplied by another information content provider, shielding platforms from liability for third-party posts.

Cite found, but the cited text does not support the claim. 47 U.S.C. 223 is the obscene-or-harassing-communications provision of the Communications Act and imposes criminal liability for certain transmissions; the publisher-immunity shield for third-party content is at 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1). Regenerate with the correct authority.

Run your own work through the judge

Kingsfield rules on every citation, quote, and proposition your AI produces, against the primary law we cover. Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation, with a signed Audit Capsule.

Connect the Judge See the architecture

This page is legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The draft shown is an illustration of a typical AI answer; verdicts reflect the cited authority in the Kingsfield corpus as of the ruling date shown above.