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
-
-
Replying to @ebola_merican @est1608
They include "harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Many many people think of certain kinds of political speech as otherwise objectionable
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ebola_merican @est1608
"Otherwise objectionable" is good enough, and I'm quite certain they wanted to include censorship of racism, satanism, and other controversial topics within that
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Replying to @ebola_merican @est1608
Well, I think we both know that interpretation isn't going to be accepted any time soon, but a new law at least has some shot.
7:38 PM - 24 Dec 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.