In fact it very much is, and the authors of the bill have said so explicitly.
The purpose of Section 230 was to reduce barriers to websites deciding for themselves what content to permit, and what rules to impose. And that's exactly what is happening.
The purpose of Section 230 was to reduce barriers to websites deciding for themselves what content to permit, and what rules to impose. And that's exactly what is happening.
https://twitter.com/BYU_FedSoc/status/1440378433658257410
Displaying either ignorance of how the law is applied, or rank dishonesty (made more likely by the "original purpose" claim)
Courts would still dismiss lawsuits based on content moderation decisions under (c)(1), where most of them are resolved.
Courts would still dismiss lawsuits based on content moderation decisions under (c)(1), where most of them are resolved.
https://twitter.com/BYU_FedSoc/status/1440381083380375558?s=20
They...have? Section 230 does not protect against the enforcement of criminal laws. It's dishonest bullshit all the way down with her.
https://twitter.com/BYU_FedSoc/status/1440381449950023684?s=20
Harmeet's problem is with the First Amendment, which shockingly doesn't give you a legal free speech right against private actors.
If she's worried about the First Amendment being used for political gain, I have bad news for her about her entire career.
If she's worried about the First Amendment being used for political gain, I have bad news for her about her entire career.
https://twitter.com/BYU_FedSoc/status/1440378798919147526?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
