How to pronounce“cda”in English

the CDA in any way he could.

the CDA, Congress made it a crime, also punishable by two years in prison to say online anything quote "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent with intent to annoy another person."

The CDA was thus given a decent burial.

what CDA 230 does is it immunizes platforms and not just platforms really any website any, I always say publication any.

At the time the CDA was enacted, Clinton Fein's day job as a self-taught computer whiz was constructing and maintaining websites.

its own CDA, created and designed to annoy.

In the CDA case and other internet cases, these roles were reversed.

and there's also CDA 230, which has a second kind of second-order layer on that.

The act which we called the CDA was the most sweeping restriction on the speech of ordinary citizens that Congress has ever attempted.

The court found then that the CDA would criminalize a vast range of speech that Americans--at least adults--have a right to engage in.

After the demise of the CDA, the Congress attempted three other laws attempting to restrict

Our main attack was on a provision of the CDA that it was different from the ones in ACLU case.

The problem with annoy.com was that if the CDA was constitutional, Clinton then was subject to criminal prosecution for violating both the prohibition on posting indecency and the

So, if we repealed section 230 of the CDA tomorrow, that would not stop disinformation, that would not stop hate speech,

And this has got, actually, the lowest drag number we've ever measured in the wind tunnel, if it means anything to anyone, a CDA of 0.132.

The ostensible purpose of the CDA was to shield children from exposure to indecent online material.

And the CDA was promptly challenged by the American Civil Liberties

And we were concerned about the CDA's impact.

And there, we attacked the constitutionality of the CDA itself.

Janet Reno was my law school classmate and it's hard for me to believe that she could believe the arguments that her underlings made on her behalf to support the CDA.

What he didn't get but deserved was a ringing affirmation that the CDA annoy provision violated the First Amendment.

And I know that everybody introduces like, \"Oh, we're gonna do this to CDA 230 or that to CDA 230."

And so if you look at both Republicans and Democrats, you have a series of complaints against CDA 230.

So we should sort of put that to one side and in the way and the president is as guilty as those on the left are sort of in thinking that CDA

That's a very difficult problem to solve for lots of reasons, but you could take that as one of the legislative goals or reform goals without throwing out CDA 230.

If you look at that book, Social Media and Democracy, you'll see a lot of suggestions about what we could do with CDA 230.