That's the First Amendment for you. By necessity it protects lots of stuff that decent people can agree are not good or OK.

Show Post

No. That's wrong. As i've explained dozens of times tonight (not to mention over the past 20 years or so). The law says the exact opposite. It says that they can make editorial choices (in fact, they are encouraged to). And the encouragement is that they are not held liable for 3rd party content.

Show Post

Literally the point of 230 was to make editorial decisions. Under your version the law makes no sense.

Show Post

I know both the authors of the law and have interviewed them many times. You are simply incorrect. Like, hilariously so.

Show Post

That is wrong. Only (c)(2) requires good faith. (c)(1) (which most courts focus on) does not require good faith. And, NO COURT anywhere has *ever* said it required "viewpoint neutral" decisions. That's is literally the opposite of what the law was written to do.

Show Post