- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,799
- Reaction score
- 33,920
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's not. What's unconstitutional is conditioning that protection based on speech Twitter does or doesn't allow on its platform....How is it unconstitutional to not protect a publisher from responsibility?
First of all, being "an editor" in this case just means they moderate their platform. Every website on the planet big enough for us to recognize, and millions more, moderates their platform, deletes posts, bans people, etc. This place does that, as you know, so they too are "editors" and protected by 230, and should be.Sure it does. It doesn't however have the right to 230 protection, especially if it acts as an editor
Certainly Congress could repeal 230 and remove the protections for every website, but they can't target Twitter or any place else because Congress believes they are inappropriately "censoring" speech. Twitter have a 1A right to censor however they see fit, be as biased as they want, and government cannot act against that real or perceived bias, and removing a benefit would be exactly that.
My goodness, we want this to be the case. Fox News has no "right" to a broadcast license - it's a privilege. Imagine if Pres. AOC said - Hey, Fox, either allow liberals a prime time slot or else we'll pull your license! You're being too mean to me! It's not FAIR that you always criticize liberals!! Fox News doesn't believe in FREE SPEECH because they don't have liberals in that time slot!!