>This seems like a silly post on first reading, but actually thinking about it, that would mean the first amendment actually applies to Twitter right?
Without Section 230 Twitter would be liable for every evil thing that is said on their platform.
What Section 230 does is create a category in which you are not liable for the content on the platform but they specifically setup limited rules for what can be censored. All censorship must be done in good faith. Lewd, obscene, harassment etc is censorable. But again good faith, you cant just say everything is harassment or obscene so you can censor speech.
So absolutely, twitter is legally obligated to allow free speech. The big controversy is that they are clearly in violation of this but nobody is punishing them. They just get away with it.
>It's an interesting mind exercise. What happens with blatant spamming, or bots, is the government allowed to interfere with those? Or does the 1st amendment block that too?
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
So twitter could ban porn under lewd category but they choose not to do. Same with gore and obscenity in general.
You dont have to censor these things, but you can if you please.
Censoring political speech under any of those categories is going to be virtually impossible to justify that they are doing this in good faith.