Bob Lewis v. Google LLC, et al.

Does this Court’s holding in Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, at 1736-1736, 198 L. Ed. 2d 273 (2017) that First Amendment protections apply to social media platforms override 47 U.S.C. § 230’s civil liability indemnification for censorship of constitution­ ally protected speech?

Does the Petitioner, whose constitutionally pro­ tected speech was censored and lost revenues as a di­ rect result of the Respondents’ claim he violated their “hate speech” policies, lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of 47 U.S.C. § 230 when the Respond­ ents employ it as a liability defense?

Does 47 U.S.C. § 230 allow private third parties the unrestricted ability to regulate protected speech in vi­ olation of the United States Constitution’s bar on Con­ gress enacting laws that indirectly regulate protected speech in an unrestricted fashion?

Does the government’s participation and encour­ agement of social media censorship based on “hate speech” transform the Respondents into joint-enterprise state actors when they censor the Petitioner’s protected speech on their social media platforms in re­ sponse?

Because 47 U.S.C. § 230 relies on vague language and/or does not define its terms to provide indemnifi­ cation from civil liability for censoring constitutionally protected speech, is it itself unconstitutional?