DEMOCRATS PICKING ON TRUMP FOR TAKING ON TWITTER

True this is true

Trump "taking on Twitter" is going to get his personal account disabled or deleted. Which is fine by me, it should have happened the day he took office. He should be using the POTUS one.

Trump isn't 'taking on Twitter' he's just unleashing the law enforcement to enforce the already existing laws that say they only get protection from other people posting illegal content by not altering or censoring that content (except in the case of a voluntary child block).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 (c)

Twitter users are bound by their policies. Every user agrees to them. You are entitled to your opinions, but Twitter is not legally obligated to help you promote them.

If you support a baker’s right to refuse service, you don’t have a stone to throw in this.

Twitter policy does not supercede federal law.
Like I said Twitter can do whatever they want, but they then lose the special protection from criminal prosecution.
The law says that if you alter or censor content you don't qualify for the protections. Trump is simply enforcing the law at this point.

Cute. Wrong, but cute.

Actually its correct and its backed by law and legal precedent. We just haven't had a president that was willing to prosecute.

Finally got around to the links here. Please tell me you’re not a lawyer - the first one means exactly the opposite of what you think it means, and the second one is completely irrelevant as it is exclusively about copyright issues.

It's very simple. They meet the requirements to be a provider. By that definition they can't be sued for aiding and abetting, but they cannot censor or alter content

“No provider...of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of...any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider...considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected...”

This is how the thing reads specifically for providers. Twitter can censor anything on their site that they deem in any way objectionable, and can do so without fear of liability. At least, they can according to this part of U.S. Code. I don’t suppose you have any other support?

Now go look up the definition it gives for providers. It lists that they cannot be defined as providers if they alter the data.

You’re going to *have to* quote that bit, because I don’t see it.

"(1) Service provider .— (A) As used in subsection (a), the term “service provider” means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received. (B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term “service provider” means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A)."

From https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

You’re taking a definition of a term from one piece of the U.S. Code (one which is irrelevant to the case at hand, as the President is not bringing a case of copyright infringement) and applying it to another part. While I understand that seems a reasonable thing to do, the reality is that the meaning of a word can change even slightly based on context, and if laws are not written with explicit definitions they are easy to manipulate. This is why there is a definitions section of every part of the code.

As such, the definitions section from one piece of legislation cannot be applied to another, especially if the relevant legislation explicitly defines the word differently. The definition for provider in the relevant legislation is:

(4) Access software provider
The term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.

You’ll notice that this definition does not place limitations on the provider based on whether content has been altered. This is probably because the legislation is specifically about the altering or removing of offensive content.

It's not just copyright infringement, its any illegal content found on their platforms.

Sorry, no. It's just about copyright infringement, and nothing else.

"(a)Transitory Digital Network Communications.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for **infringement of copyright**...

(b)System Caching.—
(1)Limitation on liability.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for **infringement of copyright**...

(c)Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.—
(1)In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for **infringement of copyright**...

(d)Information Location Tools.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for **infringement of copyright**...

(g)Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability.—
(1)No liability for taking down generally.—
Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider’s good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be **infringing**..."

Seriously, I really hope you're not a lawyer. This is basic legal document reading comprehension here. Also, Title 17 Chapter 5 (where this law is found) is literally called COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES.

Replying to below: interesting, so they can still be brought up on charges for aiding and abetting child porn which they frequently allow on their platform.