[jerrya]

Apologies, but it's not clear to me the relevance of what you are saying to what I have posted.

I don't think I'm asking for freedom from consequences for anyone, just the reverse of anything, I think sites should be granted 230 immunities but only if they provide some form of due process to users, and if they don't, users should be able to take sites to court just like they could if there was no 230.

[BostonFern]

The language you use seems to indicate that you either assume the First Amendment to be synonymous with freedom of speech, a common misconception, or that you believe the First Amendment would apply to tech companies currently protected by Section 230 were it repealed.

[jerrya]

> or that you believe the First Amendment would apply to tech companies currently protected by Section 230 were it repealed.

Is that not what Tim Wu is saying?

> But content moderation, as an exercise of editorial discretion, is protected by the First Amendment. And that Congress can’t repeal.

And so my understanding is that

1. Site content moderation actions are protected by the First Amendment.

2. Gov't can't tell a site what to moderate or not.

3. But without 230, a user can potentially sue a site for defamation or other reasons.

4. 230 provides a site a bypass to those suits, it gives sites publisher immunity.

My suggestion is that publisher immunity from user lawsuits should come with some guarantee of due process. Congress took away the ability of users to sue. My suggestion is that seemed reasonable in 1996, but today Congress should return to the user some ability to negotiate/talk/appeal to sites regarding their takedowns/suspensions/bans. I refer to that as a form of due process. But if you wish, call that a consumer protection law.

I've mentioned this twice now, and people tell me I need to read the Constitution or that I am confusing free speech and the First Amendment.

I definitely have no idea what you folks are seeing, and wish you could more clearly express your ideas and help with that.

[michaelmrose]

What sort of suits do you wish could proceed?

When you say due process regarding being banned what would that look like? Why should anyone have to justify to you why you can't use someone else's website?

Under what terms and situations would they have to reinstate you? Why?