Adult Platforms Brace for Impact as Congress Targets Section 230

Lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have introduced new legislation to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This foundational law shields online platforms, including adult sites, from liability for user-generated content.

But it's not just adult sites that Section 230 protects. Sites like YouTube also benefit from the law.

YouTube hosts hundreds of hours of video uploaded every minute. Section 230 says that YouTube is not legally treated as the “publisher” of those videos.

That means:

• If a user uploads a defamatory video → YouTube isn’t automatically liable
• If a user posts hate speech, misinformation, or illegal content → the uploader is responsible
• If someone claims emotional or reputational harm from a video → they generally must sue the creator, not the platform

Without Section 230:

• YouTube could be sued for every harmful or unlawful thing a user uploads
• Even defending those lawsuits would be financially impossible at scale
• The rational response would be to pre-screen everything or drastically limit uploads

In short, YouTube could not function as an open platform without Section 230. Neither could TikTok, Reddit, or even Yelp.

It allows platforms to moderate content without being punished for it. If Section 230 disappears or is severely weakened:

Platforms would likely:

• Disable comments
• Ban controversial topics
• Heavily restrict uploads
• Require identity verification
• Or stop hosting user content altogether

This is why many civil liberties groups warn that repealing Section 230 would:

• Concentrate power in the largest platforms
• Silence marginalized or controversial speech
• Make the internet less open and less participatory

The proposals mark one of the most serious renewed efforts in years to dismantle the legal framework that underpins much of the modern internet.

On December 16, Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) introduced H.R. 6746, titled the Sunset to Reform Section 230 Act. The bill adds a single but sweeping provision: Section 230 would automatically expire on December 31, 2026, unless Congress passes replacement legislation.

A day later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a companion measure in the Senate, S. 3546, which similarly calls for repealing Section 230 two years after enactment. Graham’s bill is notably bipartisan, with Democratic co-sponsors including Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

Supporters frame the sunset provision as leverage rather than an end in itself. By setting an expiration date, lawmakers hope to force technology companies, civil liberties groups, and other stakeholders into negotiations over reform.

Rep. Hageman has argued that the current statute gives platforms too much discretion, particularly around the vague phrase “otherwise objectionable,” which allows companies to remove content based on their own standards. Her stated goal is to replace that language with a narrower “unlawful” standard, limiting moderation immunity to content that actually violates the law.

Sen. Blumenthal echoed that strategy, saying the bill is meant to compel “Big Tech to the table” by threatening to strip its immunity altogether if reforms aren’t agreed upon.

Others, including Graham, have been more explicit that full repeal may be necessary.

Legal experts warn that even revising Section 230 could be devastating for adult platforms.

“The modern adult industry is largely dependent on Section 230,” said industry attorney Lawrence Walters. “Fan sites, cam sites, and adult platforms simply could not operate at scale without it. A repeal or carve-out would threaten the entire business model.”

The concern is not hypothetical. In 2018, FOSTA/SESTA carved out an exception to Section 230 related to sex trafficking, a move widely blamed for shuttering platforms, increasing censorship, and pushing sex workers into more dangerous situations.

Advocates fear a similar carve-out for “obscenity” or adult content could be next, especially given the current political climate.

Several recent developments heighten those concerns:

• The Supreme Court’s decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton lowered the level of scrutiny for laws restricting access to adult content.
• President Trump previously attempted to repeal Section 230 during his first term.
• FCC Chair Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee and Project 2025 contributor, has publicly called for gutting Section 230 protections and supported claims that pornography lacks First Amendment protection.
• Project 2025 explicitly calls for criminalizing pornography.
• Graham’s bill has bipartisan backing, increasing its political viability.

“If Section 230 goes away for adult platforms, it effectively opens the floodgates to lawsuits,” said attorney Corey Silverstein. “Even lawful content could become a liability nightmare. It would be catastrophic.”

H.R. 6746 has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, while S. 3546 awaits Senate consideration. Neither bill has advanced beyond introduction, but their timing and bipartisan support suggest Section 230 is firmly back in lawmakers’ crosshairs.

For adult platforms and the broader internet ecosystem, the stakes could not be higher. Section 230 doesn’t just protect companies; it prevents unpopular but legal speech from being buried under endless litigation.

As Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Alison Boden previously warned, changes to Section 230 would almost certainly trigger “a further crackdown on sexual content.”

But more than just adult content, the same legal protection that keeps adult platforms alive also enables:

• YouTube videos
• TikTok posts
• Instagram comments
• Reddit threads
• Yelp reviews
• Wikipedia articles
• Comment sections on news sites

Without this protection, platforms would face lawsuits for both removing content and failing to remove content. The safest option would be over-censorship or shutting down user uploads entirely.

Is that the future you want to face?