[TBP]

Why not repeal that section?

[street_lawyer]

I understand that there are tons of articles and that not everyone has the time to read everyone. I am also guilty of reading a headline and maybe the first paragraph and not getting the whole story. So if you read the article you would realize that the section was meant to protect children.

ARGUMENT: The intent of the legislature was to protect children and insulating social media platforms from disallowing obscene material to be posted. But it is being used as a political weapon. That’s not what congress intended. The phrase “otherwise objectionable” according precedent on statutory interpretation refers to the same type of material as what preceded it. Maybe taking down what Trump tweets is proper since it is harassing in nature, but taking down Dr. Erickson from Facebook NO WAY is that the “same type” of material. https://badnewsjournal.com/social-media-legislation