Okay, let's just strike the "otherwise objectionable" at the end of (c)(2)(A):
What cause of action do you imagine you'd have that wouldn't be barred by 1A?
What cause of action do you imagine you'd have that wouldn't be barred by 1A?
Please tell me how your 1A hypothetical works out. Genuinely interested in hearing how you think 1A and SCOTUS will support your side of this argument.
I asked you to provide a cause of action for "censorship" by a web site. SOvP isn't that. A more recent, federal, and better-fitting case would be PragerU vs. YouTube. There, PragerU sued over their content being remove/restricted. They lost on 230 grounds. But even without 230, they almost certainly would have lost on 1A grounds, because YouTube's exercise of editorial discretion about what content they host is clearly 1A protected activity.
Going back to Stratton Oakmont for a moment: I understand the argument that, absent the liability shield in 230, content moderation of less-than-clearly-illegal content would be vanishingly rare. Web sites would seek to avoid potential liability by getting out of the content-moderation business, which would fix your issue. I'm not convinced that would actually be the outcome. Even if it were, I wouldn't enjoy every web site devolving into 4chan-but-covered-in-spam.
“... if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.”
https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...
That would still be a problem (because it would allow companies to censor critics, even if the criticism wasn't actually defamatory), but at least we wouldn't have incoherent arguments about a non-existent publisher/platform dichotomy.
That city-journal piece is pretty awful. For instance, regarding the bit you quoted, they absolutely can claim that 230 protects free speech. Private censorship on private property is free speech.
Congress almost certainly can't pass a law that outlaws viewpoint discrimination for web sites that would survive 1A scrutiny. Fiddling with defamation liability to get around the constitution might work, but just because you can doesn't mean you should.