It does clearly violate Sec. 230 of the CDA, in that the section provides intermediary immunity. But just because it violates Sec. 230 of the CDA doesn't make it unconstitutional... Just wondering if that word was used in the title superfluously or for a reason?
×
Email This Story
This feature is only available to registered users. You can register here or sign in to use it.
Re:
It does clearly violate Sec. 230 of the CDA, in that the section provides intermediary immunity. But just because it violates Sec. 230 of the CDA doesn't make it unconstitutional... Just wondering if that word was used in the title superfluously or for a reason?