Thread by @gabrielmalor, There's so much obviously wrong here, and it's sad that someone who [...]

Gabriel Malor

gabrielmalor

There& #39;s so much obviously wrong here, and it& #39;s sad that someone who actually knows better would spread this garbage.

NYT is liable when it commissions and publishes an op-ed. It is not liable if someone posted an identical op-ed in its unedited comments section. That& #39;s § 230. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093">https://twitter.com/tedcruz/s...

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093

Sen. Cruz is not an idiot, and he knows this, but he& #39;s gotta keep sniffing that Trump taint so he can keep his senate seat. Sad!

Among many errors here is Sen. Cruz& #39;s assertion that NYT is "neutral" and therefore protected by CDA § 230.

(1) NYT is not neutral, wtf!?!
(2) CDA § 230 liability protection is not dependent on neutrality. You could find this out by, y& #39;know, reading the short text of the law. https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093">https://twitter.com/tedcruz/s...

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093

The idea that § 230 was animated by a "spirit" of neutrality by tech companies is a-textual and a-historical.

Congress recognized that tort-based liability to internet providers and websites for the speech of third parties would stifle speech the internet. That& #39;s it.

The claim that there was a grand bargain between tech giants and the fed. gov& #39;t that websites would be politically neutral is a fantasy. It did not happen that way.

(Also, even the suggestion is heinously anti-free speech.)

I& #39;m going to blow your mind here and suggest that rather than make up a fantasy about tech bargaining for neutrality, we can turn to the text of the statute to determine what Congress was up to when it created § 230.

Note: liability protection is not contingent on neutrality.

This, of course, is obvious. I& #39;m liable for what I put on my website—even if I& #39;m political af.

I& #39;m not liable for what other people put on my website—even if I& #39;m political af.

This is how speech flourishes on the internet.

Put another way, if I have a blog, and I have open comments, CDA § 230 means, generally, that I can& #39;t be held liable for my commenters& #39; posts.

It doesn& #39;t mean that my blog has to be nonpartisan and a-political! A law like that would violate my First Amendment rights.

You can follow @gabrielmalor.

Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: