People who are denied their 1A rights should sue based on this.

🤣👍

This is trickier than I think you imagine. Of course, Americans can take grievances to court. That's fine. With a 6-3 conservative court, would they go with stare decisis or siding with business on this? There is only one way to find out.

There's also the 240 protection to be an independent platform rather than a publisher.

I think you meant section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230). Section 230 only protects websites from being sued for what a user posts on their site. I don't believe it protects them from what they themselves do, but I could be wrong.

The regs themselves set requirements for the protection.

Please explain. What regulations are you referring to?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

While I am not a lawyer, I do not see how Congress can pass a law that specifically states that you can violate the Consitution. I would like to see someone fight that in court. By that logic, all the civil rights laws would not apply to private businesses.

No where does the law say you can violate the constitution.

In the link, section(c) 2(a) states.

"(A)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; or"

As you can see it says, "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"

So if the material is constitutionally protected, then why is the law allowing Big Tech to remove it.

Also, why should Big Tech be the only one to determine what is objectionable? Who elected them?

That whole section needs to be rewritten to protect constitutionally protected speech.