No, that& #39;s wrong. First, "the editorial judgment to publish" is not exercised by Twitter, and under §230 this is not altered by post hoc removals of content. Second, you& #39;re misrepresenting NYT v. Sullivan, which requires an "actual malice" standard. (1) https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266381424896114691?s=20">https://twitter.com/tedcruz/s...

You write: "all NYT has to do to be liable is make the editorial judgement to publish." Not under current Supreme Court precedent, which requires evidence that those making the "judgement to publish" engaged in "recklessness that is required for a finding of actual malice." (2)

Which is to say that you& #39;re misrepresenting both the law that attaches to the NYT and the law that attaches to Twitter. If you wish to change §230, that& #39;s fine. And, as a senator, you& #39;re in a great position to do it. But, as it exists, it does not say what you& #39;re claiming. (3/3)