Reply to post: Re: But he actually has a case...

Re: But he actually has a case...

Except, now that Twitter so thoroughly curates their platform to police what is and is not allowed to be said there, far above and beyond what the law requires, they may no longer fall under safe harbor provisions.

I'd like I introduce you to 47 U.S Code § 230, aka "Safe Harbor", and specifically subsection (C) (aka the “Good Samaritan” section) paragraph (2):

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

As has been upheld in many, many cases, moderating, curating, blocking, censoring, content does not in any way threaten a sites safe harbor protection.

As long as the specific material that is in dispute is not the original creative content of the site itself (and doesn't breach the other exceptions, e.g. (e)(5) No effect on sex trafficking law) then a site can curate to their hearts content without losing safe harbor protections.

This has already been tested in many cases, and come through (mostly) unscathed.