I assume you are referring to Section 230 of the CDA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se

I assume you are referring to Section 230 of the CDA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio... To qualify Twitter just needs to be a "passive conduit" of the information. I believe the case law has defined this (in Twitter's context) to roughly mean as long as they do not actively monitor and screen content, then they are a passive conduit. That is, I do not believe an irate customer pointing out harassment, and then Twitter shutting the perpetrator off in response to that harassmanet, would undermine their CDA exemption in any way. I haven't looked at this in a few years, so if there is more recent case law, please enlighten me.