There's so much obviously wrong here, and it'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's § 230.https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093 …
-
Show this thread
-
Sen. Cruz is not an idiot, and he knows this, but he's gotta keep sniffing that Trump taint so he can keep his senate seat. Sad!
19 replies 36 retweets 312 likesShow this thread -
Gabriel Malor Retweeted Ted Cruz
Among many errors here is Sen. Cruz'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'know, reading the short text of the law.https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266376788407513093 …
Gabriel Malor added,
Ted CruzVerified account @tedcruzOk, Charles, you want a legal debate. Cool. If you (3rd Party) write an op-ed in NYT & it’s defamatory, NYT can be sued. If you post identical defamatory op-ed on Twitter or FB, they can’t be sued—that’s sec 230. Congress did that bc they were “neutral.” Now, they censor. https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/1266339928855756801 …7 replies 22 retweets 156 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gabrielmalor
I don't think he is arguing that 230 protection depends on neutrality, but that it should. Which is a different argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Gabriel Malor Retweeted Ted Cruz
Gabriel Malor added,
Ted CruzVerified account @tedcruz2/x You say it “isn’t true” that Congress did that bc they were neutral. Here’s some of the statutory text: “The Internet...offer[s] a forum for a TRUE DIVERSITY of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.” https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/1266380301825081344 …Show this thread3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gabrielmalor
Right, he's arguing about the statutory purpose, and that it is no longer being served by how the statute works. I think it's a misleading argument, but I have yet to see him say that 230 actually does require neutrality, just that it should.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Well, unless your argument is that the law is bad and should change. I agree that invoking the statutory purpose doesn't get you far, if anywhere at all, in a textualist analysis of what it actually does.
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.