Yeah I think we're on the same page, no one should be able to censor speech that isn't hate speech is really the main point. And definitely no jurisdiction should be given to politicians.
It’s also fundamentally unconstitutional. You cannot do this via legislation alone. The courts have long held that forcing someone to speak is as bad as punishing someone for speaking, and there is no constitutional framework for anything other than protected and unprotected speech. The courts will strike this bill down, it’s pure political theater for the base.
"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"
The otherwise objectionable bit is basically a blank check to censor anything.
[Citation Needed]
> There would not be enforcers of this on each website but if a person's rights are violated they would be able to sue the company and a court would decide if they were censoring the person without a legitimate reason or not.
Creating a legal cause of action is a fantastic way to create a chilling effect without getting your hands dirty. This is a pretty common trick lawmakers use to try and backdoor introduce rules they can’t legally enforce themselves.
Also, the courts consider themselves to be constrained by the first amendment. You can’t endrun around that amendment by using the judiciary, which is why Times v. Sullivan was decided the way it was, even though that was a civil action between private parties.
> It would have to be done at the federal level one way or another
Doing it at the federal level is not sufficient if the courts believe that the law is unconstitutional.
> The otherwise objectionable bit is basically a blank check to censor anything.
Again, this is not censorship. You are grossly abusing that word. The moment you face legal consequences for speech, we can talk about censorship. The word you’re looking for is “moderation”.
Second, you’re tap dancing around a really big problem. It’s fine and dandy to point at 230 and say “it’s too vague”, but arguing against something is easy. You need to propose a clear alternative standard that will stand up to judicial scrutiny. You have not done that.