Comments by "Debany Doombringer" (@debanydoombringer1385) on "Fifth Circuit Rejects the Idea of Tech Platforms Having Limitless Censorship Rights" video.

There is no religion tied to the US government. So no. Free speech is to protect speech you don’t like. We fought against obscenity laws in the 80s and got them defeated on 1st Amendment grounds. We’re not going back. There is a block function on every social media sight so you don’t have to see things you don’t want to. Your delicate sensibilities aren’t my problem.
1
Yes. A massive number of lawsuits they can’t win. Which will led to discovery of them taking orders from the government. Thus acting as an agent of the state which will allow for a massive number of lawsuits against the government. Creating new legal precedent that it’s all illegal. Then every time after they ban someone, they’ll be subjected to a possible lawsuit. Meaning they’ll be very careful who they ban. Edit: Previous lawsuits being thrown out due to 230 protections is what’s caused what has happened. Once the companies couldn’t be held liable for any decisions, they went nuts with banning.
1
It only becomes a publisher when it removes content that’s not illegal because that’s curating. It can pay you for the ad revenue you generate for it. A publisher pays for specific content and decides what it will and will not publish and pay for. 230 says nothing about paying. Only about what a platform is and the legal protection they are given because they don’t pick and choose their content.
1
This new court decision should have been the first one. It was due to the interpretations that 230 needing reformed was eve being pushed.
1