That doesn't seem to be the case any more per the link I shared.
I'll read the wiki you've linked though.
FWIW, here's what Eugene Volokh has to say about the effect of Section 230 on what was the previous assumed state of the law, which you accurately stated, after Stratton Oakmont vs Prodigy Services, a trial court decision from NY in 1995):
[1.] Under current law, Twitter, Facebook, and the like are immune as platforms, regardless of whether they edit (including in a politicized way). Like it or not, but this was a deliberate decision by Congress. You might prefer an "if you restrict your users' speech, you become liable for the speech you allow" model. Indeed, that was the model accepted by the court in Stratton Oakmont. But Congress rejected this model, and that rejection stands so long as § 230 remains in its current form.
|
(
In response to this post by hoothat)
Posted: 05/28/2020 at 2:17PM