The NYT can be sued if it commissions, reads, edits, and then publishes your op-ed, yes. But it cannot be sued if you write the same words in its comments section. Nor does the liability attached to those comments transfer to the Times if it responds. (1) https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093?s=20">https://twitter.com/tedcruz/s...

Moreover, the NYT is permitted to delete your comments as it sees fit—without losing the liability shield that attached to them. If it responds to them, or flags them, it is liable for its own words, but not for the third party& #39;s. This is also true of Twitter. (2)

You wrote that Twitter is "immune." It is not. It is immune from liability for third-party content that it did not see prior to publication, just as the New York Times is. If Twitter libels you, @tedcruz, it& #39;s liable, as is the Times. The rules apply equally to both. (3)

What you are doing here, @tedcruz, is similar to what Hillary Clinton does when she says that the PLCAA prevents gun manufacturers from being sued per se. It does not. It prevents them from being sued for the unapproved actions of third parties. That& #39;s Section 230, too. (4/4)

(Also, Cruz says that "Congress did that because they were & #39;neutral.& #39;" This isn& #39;t true. Section 230 applies to National Review as equally as to The Nation. The purveyor does not have to be "neutral"; the question centers on the sort of speech, not its content.)