Reviewed: 3 findings — 2 fixed, 1 dismissed
Show changes Hide changes
Before “The broad immunity the statute is now known for came from how courts read it.”
After “Courts later extended the provision's reach through their interpretation of it.”
Why: "Broad immunity" and "is now known for" characterize the statute's reputation and scope without attribution or a measurable basis. The sentence is also an interpretive framing, not a documented event. A neutral version would state what the court held.
Before “The broad immunity the statute is now known for came from how courts read it.”
After “Courts later extended the provision's reach through their interpretation of it.”
Why: This sentence is a causal and interpretive claim stated as settled fact. The statutory text of 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) already bars treating a provider or user as the publisher or speaker of another's content; saying the immunity 'came from' judicial reading overstates the court's role. The cited sources support the Zeran holding and its being followed, not the broader attribution.