Final answer:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects Internet service providers from being held liable for third-party content, such as defamatory postings. ISPs are, however, required to comply with FCC transparency rules. Defamation standards differ for public and private figures, with the 'actual malice' standard applying to public figures.
Step-by-step explanation:
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is quite significant in discussions about internet regulation and provider responsibilities. This legislation passed in 1995, aimed to protect minors from harmful online content but also to provide protections for Internet service providers (ISPs) from liability for third party-created content. The section specifies that ISPs are not considered the publishers of content provided by users, thereby shielding them from prosecution for defamation and other legal challenges based on user-generated content.
However, ISPs are not completely absolved of responsibility—they must adhere to transparency rules regarding their handling of data, as enforced by the FCC. If ISPs do not disclose their practices on blocking, throttling, and prioritization, they can face regulatory actions. Therefore, while ISPs enjoy a significant degree of legal protection, they are also subject to specific regulatory requirements.
In terms of defamation, a public figure must demonstrate that any harmful falsehood was published with 'actual malice'—aware of its falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth, as established in landmark cases like New York Times v. Sullivan. This contrasts with the standard for private individuals, where states may determine their criteria as long as the fault is proven, per the decision in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.