For whatever reason, this story did not print on my page, but I am aware of Section 230. I do not see how it can stand on its own in the shadow of free speech. Then again, the question remains whether owning a platform gives you that right.
My mother used to say, “My house, my rules.” Teachers in schools directed conversations, and still do, even if off-topic, and on matters that should not be discussed in school.
There are a number of imbalances in this world that people accept because they think it will help them better get along, and part of that is about hurting feelings, though, for practical purposes, it serves to infuriate. Having a one-sided conversation is not a conversation, so not allowing opposition voices to be heard is un-American.
Section 230 covers the Internet and should be covered by FVV regulations, but it was allowed an exception. That should be reigned in to level the playing field. Most of the news reaching us these days is from the internet, even if it is CNN, and they should hold themselves to an even higher standard than some mud-slinging newspapers.
It is a shame people forgot the antics of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer. Those “titans” also brought us Yellow Journalism, which is questionable truth but presented with hyperbole.
There was an old saying that something had to be true, or it would not get into the newspapers. I think most of us are still naive and believe that.