And there is no call for a criminal investigation. What possible crime could be charged? Please, nobody, say "the Logan Act."https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1266386246215110659 …
-
-
Show this thread
-
There's a legitimate pro-free-speech argument that Section 230 should be changed to make platforms such as Twitter more of a content-neutral common carrier. As I've said repeatedly, however, I've yet to hear a way to do this without creating more problems than you solve.
Show this thread -
The anti-free-speech case for 230 revision makes some sense if you're trying to stamp out, say, child porn. But "Twitter should not be able to publish libelous Tweets" is a terrible argument.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sounds like the Court found the need to develop a record regarding whether the publication is active or passive. The need for a record means it's an open question until the facts are known. Why not develop a record?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Editorial judgment isn't passive publication, as one might do with an add.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.