>>I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. Batzel v. Smith [1][2] >>Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies wh

>>I can't find that Ninth Circuit rulling you're referring to. Batzel v. Smith [1][2] >>Rather as I understand it section 230 is there to protect companies who want to publish a myriad of opinions by clarifying that it is the user who is liable for what they say, not the company that runs the website The 2 congressmen that created the law are on record talking about how they did not want speech on the internet to be stifled because of legal liabilities if they moderated some content, the primary justification/rhetoric at the time like most laws designed to allow censorship/moderation was "think of the children, children might see some boobs or franks and be scared for life" "The broad language of Section 230’s protection reflects the intent to protect the industry and its users’ ability to communicate freely." [1] It was not conceived at the time of the Sections passage the internet companies would start to bann their "users" or "customers" from the service for political speech, such a thing was really unheard of during that time in American History, it just was not done. Times have changed, the law needs to be updated to reflect the original intent of the law which was and is to expand not limit speech [1]https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the-record-on-section-230s-legislative-history-guest-blog-post.htm https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2019/08/correcting-the... [2]https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16376502179767104974&q=%22batzel+v.+smith%22&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=163765021797671...