![jr 080 johnsons research radio scrambler jr 080 johnsons research radio scrambler](http://comprarmarihuanamadrid.es/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Diseno-sin-titulo-85.jpg)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Section 230.” Thus, Section 230 was born and became part of the Communications Act of 1934. Title V of the 1996 Act was named the “Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Among other provisions, this Title included Section 509, named “Online family empowerment.” Consistent with Section 1(b), Congress instructed in Section 509 that “Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Section 1(b) of that Act made clear that, except where otherwise expressly provided, each of the 1996 Act’s provisions were to be inserted into the Communications Act of 1934. Since then, the most consequential set of amendments to the Communications Act arrived in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which updated the Act for the then-nascent Internet age.
![jr 080 johnsons research radio scrambler jr 080 johnsons research radio scrambler](https://www.jrc.co.jp/eng/product/lineup/jhs207/images/keyvisual_sp.jpg)
![jr 080 johnsons research radio scrambler jr 080 johnsons research radio scrambler](https://els-jbs-prod-cdn.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/cms/attachment/f8de9539-15a5-4b81-acb9-2f1ed29ac99d/fx1_lrg.jpg)
Four years later, Congress added Section 201(b), which delegated to the Commission the power to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.” In 1934, Congress adopted the Communications Act in its original form, establishing the FCC as an independent federal agency charged with regulating interstate and international communications. To understand why the Commission has authority to interpret Section 230, it helps to understand how that section became part of the Communications Act. Based on this authority, the Commission can feel confident proceeding with a rulemaking to clarify the scope of the Section 230 immunity shield. Supreme Court cases authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia- AT&T Corp.
![jr 080 johnsons research radio scrambler jr 080 johnsons research radio scrambler](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2212420919311847-fx1.jpg)
By expressly directing that Section 230 be placed into the Communications Act, Congress made clear that the FCC’s rulemaking authority extended to the provisions of that section. As I explain below, this authority flows from the plain meaning of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, which confers on the FCC the power to issue rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. Simply put, the FCC has the authority to interpret all provisions of the Communications Act, including amendments such as Section 230. The policy issues raised by the debate over Section 230 may be complex, but the FCC’s legal authority is straightforward. Due to the unique interest generated by this proceeding, Chairman Pai has now asked me to make my analysis public, in furtherance of his longstanding commitment to transparency in the rulemaking process. The Chairman’s decision was consistent with my advice that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. In announcing his decision, Chairman Pai noted that “embers of all three branches of government have expressed serious concern about the prevailing interpretation” of Section 230, and observed that an overly broad interpretation could “shield social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text” of the statute. Under certain circumstances, Section 230 provides websites, including social media companies, that host or moderate content generated by others with immunity from liability. Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.