Excerpt from City Journal “In 1995, a federal judge found Prodigy, an early online service, liable for content on its message boards because the company had advertised that it removed obscene posts. The court reasoned that “utilizing technology and the manpower to delete”

objectionable content made Prodigy more like a publisher than a library.

Congress responded by enacting Section 230, establishing that platforms could not be held liable as publishers of user-generated content and clarifying that they could not be held liable for removing any

content that they believed in good faith to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not

mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

The dominant social media companies must choose:

if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape,

control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.” You can read the full article below.

However, Dan Bongino is right. Twitter has made themselves into publishers and not a platform. All protections Twitter enjoys as a https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1265431870692605953

platform shouldbe revoked. Our Congress did this and they need to fix it.

Communist Comrades;
@SpeakerPelosi
@senatedems
@housedemocrats
@TheDemocrats
@TomPerez

cc @POTUS @realDonaldTrump @TrumpWarRoom
@Senatemajldr @HouseGOP @GOPLeader @SenateGOP

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html