Brendan Carr

@BrendanCarrFCC ↗

Deleted No

Hibernated No

Last Checked March 21, 2021

Created

Wed Dec 16 03:09:32 +0000 2020

Likes

Retweets

Source

Twitter for iPhone

View Raw Data

JSON Data

View on Twitter

Likely Available

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

The answer to that question flows from the text of the statute and leaves a website’s constitutional rights uninfringed. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Dec. 16, 2020

Preceded By

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

In other words, the question presented by the Section 230 Petition is not whether the First Amendment will continue to cover a take down decision (it will) but whether a particular take down *also* benefits from Section 230’s statutory protections. — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Dec. 16, 2020

Followed By

Brendan Carr @BrendanCarrFCC

This also pierces the claim that Section 230 reform will result in less speech, not more. Leaving speech up would continue to benefit from the protections conferred by Section 230(c)(1)’s famous “26 words.” — PolitiTweet.org

Posted Dec. 16, 2020