Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN) locked out by Twitter.

[jsharmon7]

I don't know... that may fall under the "offensive" category...

Touché...

 

[BugI02]

Removing 230 protection is too tame. They should be made to become a common carrier

 

[BugI02]

Soooo a certain mod couldn’t banhammer me if I say Glock is far superior to 1911s? [feels like it is made out of two scrap cuts of 2 x 4 nailed together, whereas a 1911 feels like a fine Italian sportscar]

Fixy

 

[Jamie-K]

The Supreme Court needs to fix this. When a private company has the power and authority to silence an elected government official the republic is gone.

I agree. These media corporations are private, but they're not platforms … they are publishers.
A media platform has protections under the law, publisher does not.

That is what the Supreme Court needs to fix !

 

[MCgrease08]

Soooo a certain mod couldn’t banhammer me if I say Glock is far superior to 1911s?

 

[Shadow01]

Right, but I think they cannot block the posting of material that is not illegal or offensive (pornography, etc.), just because it presents an unpopular viewpoint. For example they can't block something just because the source is Salon, or Vice (or Gateway Pundit, etc. on the other end of the spectrum). Maybe I'm not understanding it correctly, but that was my impression.

If they want to limit opinions (again, not illegal stuff), then they are no longer a content provider and have then become a publisher.

The general way to look at it is 230 provides protection for sites that are not publishers. Basically this site is open and by not limiting speech would be under 230 protection for the content here.
sites that limit, change or remove your posted content are publishers and are not or should not be afforded 230 protection. Itis much deeper than that and is not typically enforced as written.