[sixstringtheory]

The question was

> Where have Fox News editorialised (sic) users content?

not

> Where have Fox News editorialised (sic) users political speech?

so my reply should in no way construe my opinion of what is or is not political speech.

Now that we've established that Fox News does in fact editorialize user content, we can move on to the original question of whether or not they should now

> be liable for suit for anything posted by commenters to their online articles

[isoskeles]

> pretending content is not often political speech

[CyberDildonics]

The person you are replying to explicitly said that is not the point in the larger issue.

[isoskeles]

Sorry, you don't just get to decide what is a larger point in some discussion.

The law is capable of distinguishing between ideas, including whether content is good-faith speech or trolling. Pretending the two are the same and that a law could not possibly allow for a platform to moderate the latter without sacrificing its "neutrality" seems unreasonable.

I think it is a valid question that could be scrutinized in court, but there is no need to be obtuse about the fact that these are different categories of speech that the law could treat differently specifically with regard to how it would categorize ("neutrality" of) a platform on the internet, not whether or not the speech is entirely forbidden period.