i dont need to discern the intent, its told explictly to me by the writers of the document. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...tics-are-wrong-about-history-intent-230.shtml " Author Of Section 230 Chris Cox Says All The Critics Are Wrong About The History And Intent Of 230" it had two writers. here is the other " Ron Wyden Explains Why President Trump (And Many Others) Are Totally Wrong About Section 230 https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...ers-are-totally-wrong-about-section-230.shtml
so again, its not so much my opinion, but the explicit and exact opinion of the folks that wrote the law itself
if trump doesnt like twitter, he can use an alternative. he shouldnt try to use the power of government to fuck with twitter. he should use gab or parler of any of a bunch of alternatives
Bet the folks who wrote the Bill of Rights didn't intend for women to claim the right to kill their babies in the womb. Sooner or later, someone will go to court over 230. Then we'll find out that it really means whatever some judge says it means.
so ignore what the framers meant in favor of some future judge? thats not how laws work. we dont invent possible futures for them and adjudicate based on that we already know what it means. we dont need to pretend we are clueless until some future judge gets involved. laws can exist even before the future you imagine. what exacty do we want here? should trump be able to coerce twitter to run their company the way he wants? and we want that freedom for biden too if he is elected?
I couldn't. He retired. Now I'm lucky if my new doctor spends 2 minutes with me. That's long enough for a hooker but not for proper medical care.
that was when i was arguing with red, who had actual points to make you said this: "“If you like your doctor you can keep him”" could you make that into a point about the topic? or do you want me to make your points for you based on your vague paraphrases of obama about a different topic?
