What case are you referring to? I am quite interesting in looking into it if such a case exists. Also I would like to point out that things are quite different now than they were in the 90's. I remember the early internet, I remember dial up was all we had and when AOL was king. We didn't have massive social media companies banning people and censoring posts for partisan reasons back then.
Just because you don't understand the argument dosen't mean it is not relevent, there is perhaps an argument to be made about whether or not said laws should be updated or changed but the law as it stands now is being violated by these social media companies.
So social media companies can legally enjoy immunity under safe harbor provisions as a neutral platform while actually acting more as publishers with "fact checking" that is blatantly motivated by partisanship. Oh, okay, I got it.