I’m grandfathered in on freedom of speech by 65 years they can kiss it. David
Removing the bill would make sources like longrangehunting.com liable for things that it's userspost instead of shielding the website and forcing suits to be direct to whomever originated the post. (which is currently how it works)
Removing it will lead to to major and somewhat immediate sensorship from websites and social media outlets of anything they think may land them in any sort of of a lawsuit.
Removing it would allow political leaders, corporations, and others to sue websites and social media outlets for content that users of those places share that said leaders, corporations and other find personally offensive/unflattering/hurtful.
Removing it would mean that if I quoted the above post, and another user on here saw it and was offended I could be liable for any lawsuits brought to bear even though I didn't create the post, and it wouldnt matter if I quoted it to agree with it or to disagree with it. Only that I quoted it.
If it gets repealed it will have a huge negative effect on our freedoms of speech and expression on the internet.
Please read up on it before you make a decision.
The following link is from the electronic frontier foundation. They're basically the NRA for the internet. They are constantly working to keep the internet from being censored and controlled by governments and corporations.
47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act Tucked inside the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 is one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet: Section 230. This comes somewhat as a surprise, since the original...www.eff.org