1/ I usually hesitate to crap on student newspaper articles, but this piece was actually written by the paper's advisor, @mdgiusti, who is the journalism *chair* and clearly not doing students any favors in the "make sure what you're writing isn't totally wrong" department.
2/ Off to a bad start, completely mangling the history. First of all, "everyone saw they were different?" No.
Second, Cubby Inc. v. Compuserve (one of the cases leading to 230) was actually about distributor liability, which has nothing to do with the decision to publish.
3/ Instead, the court in Cubby found that Compuserve was a distributor, and thus would have had to have actual or constructive knowledge of content's defamatory nature (and plaintiffs hadn't produced any such evidence) before liability could be imposed for speech on its service.
John Catanzara is an unmitigated asshole shitbird.
But I really should not have to tell you, @mawarnerjr, that encouraging police officers to violate the city's vaccine mandate is absolutely not "sedition."
Not for nothing, the question of whether it is proscribable incitement may be a closer call, given that Illinois law prohibits strikes/work stoppages by police officers.
But sedition it is definitely not.
"Advocating anarchy" is also protected by the First Amendment, by the way.
1/ Business school profs have just *got* to stop writing these articles about Section 230. Or at least have someone with an understanding of the law review it. It's embarrassing.
This one comes to us from a dean at @MITSloan, and it's a doozy.
2/ The theme of the article is clear from the top: Section 230 is Very Bad because it makes it difficult to hold platforms available for misinformation/disinformation that people spread online.
3/ But what Professor Cusumano doesn't grapple with (they never do) is whether platforms could be held accountable by law for such user content even without Section 230.
2/ Everyone has BigLaw horror stories. But more often than not, those aren't the singular reason why people choose to leave. It's much more, in my experience anyway, overarching quality of life and/or professional interests/satisfaction concerns.
3/ Few BigLaw expats that I've met are out there trash talking their own firms. Who even does that?
For my part, I worked with some ridiculously talented lawyers who happened to also be nice people and good colleagues that I learned a great deal from and think of fondly.
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.
Teachers, like other government employees, retain a First Amendment right to speak as private citizens (i.e., not in their official capacity) on matters of public concern.
Teachers *cannot* be forced to only speak as if they are in the classroom with students 24/7/365.
3/ The list of things that social media accounts will be screened for is broad, vague, subjective, and viewpoint-based.
Many things that could be deemed as one of these things are nevertheless constitutionally protected and protected from retaliation from @AustinISD.