I feel like if Republicans want to start a moral panic about "grooming," they can't simultaneously be using phrases like "domestic supply of infants" in their legal briefs.
https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1523442122921156608 The four paragraphs of utter insanity that precedes it somehow makes the "no comment" the most insane line in the bunch.
Oh, I know he definitely watched Sicario 2 and thought there'd been real prayer mats found in the desert.
Elon has said he would unban Trump if he acquires Twitter. Elon continues with this massively naive idea that Twitter is a "town square" where "debate" happens, and not just a deeply-manipulated mexican-stand-off of propaganda.
Section 230 refers to "interactive computer services" not "internet providers" which are classified separately as common carriers under Title II (or they aren't, depending on who is President). Regardless, a loss of Section 230 protections would merely open up an interactive computer service to editorial liability for the things on their platform; in no case would it impose a common carrier duty on them. This is a pretty clear First Amendment violation from the Fifth Circuit, and their technical ignorance just compounds their legal failure.
Yes, they are a provider of interactive computer services, they are not a provider of internet. It's the difference between the Sears Catalog and the US Mail. It's a first amendment violation because the state is requiring them to host and distribute speech they do not consent to. You could argue they are exceeding the immunity granted to them by Section 230 (to which I would disagree, but that would require a closer reading of the statute), but even if they did, the consequence of losing Section 230 protection is not that they are required to host speech they do not consent to, but rather that they could be sued for hosting libelous or defamatory speech, as if they were the speaker themselves.
This is basically the reason 230 exists. Without it, all services that host user-generated content would immediately shut down. From Facebook to this message board, they'd all shutter the next day. The legal liability is simply too large.
It still considered compelled speech if it is on your property, even if it isn't claimed to be your speech. In 2018 the Supreme Court held that it was a First Amendment violation to require anti-abortion clinics to disclose that they are not licensed medical centers, a case where the state had a far stronger public interest in the issue at question.
They call themselves "crisis pregnancy centers" and it's a place designed to look like a women's health clinic, but its sole purpose is to divert women away from clinics that may offer, or explain as an option, abortion. Realizing the limitations of yelling at a woman from the sidewalk as she walks into a clinic, they figured "what if we just tricked her into thinking we were the clinic instead?"
It's a clinic run by religious zealots that pretend to offer abortion. Once they go in they get the hard sell to stay pregnant.
I see. Well… that is absolutely psychotic. But easy to fund, when your provider never has to pay a dime of taxes for the billions that come in. Is this the same country that also gave us Blockbuster Video and Tower Records? I guess once Gen-Xers could no longer fool the world into thinking Starbucks was sophisticated it was all downhill from here. I’ll see you at the next Kevin Sorbo movie.