Probably they should explicitly only have given immunity to service providers who didn't censor, but that would literally be the opposite of the original intent, which was to encourage censorship by preventing suits based on the idea of censorship as editorial control
-
-
The CDA is such a strange law.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
tbf though, the idea of service providers as publishers who should be liable for their users was ridiculous in the first place, and the law corrected that problem no matter what the intent was. Now we just need to find a way to frame
#shallnotcensor as protecting the children1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @ebola_merican @est1608
I mean, the CDA was basically a censorship bill that had hidden pro-freedom components. It would be a neat trick to do that again
7:04 PM - 24 Dec 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.