[mcphage]

I’m really confused where you’re coming from, in that you’re aware of that case enough to cite it, and yet not aware that it is (and this is a direct quote from one of the first lines on Wikipedia about it)

> The result of the case is central to the rationale behind passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, aimed to allow internet service providers to avoid liability for user content on their services while still giving them the means for removing illegal content.