So basically yeah, they're trying to say that since Ron heard it from someone else, he can't be punished for repeating it. No "provider or user" suggests that 230c1 does apply to Twitter users, and the "or speaker" suggests it would apply to defamation.
Aka, they're claiming Section 230(c)(1) makes it impossible to punish anyone who uses the internet for any speech crime -- Defamation, Slander, Libel -- as long as they claim to have heard the things they are saying from someone else. (Would Information Content Provider be other publishers, or individual users, or "fucking anyone"?)
Dear god what a Hail Mary.
By this logic, literally any speech, no matter what, is legal. Want to send Trump a Death Threat? Say you heard online someplace that he's gonna die screaming. Want to lie about someone? "You heard it somewhere." Want to defame people? Retweet in a circle, deleting the original tweet. In each case, 230c1 says you're not the speaker, ergo, you can't be punished for it.
Edit: Amusingly, this also makes Doxing explicitly legal. We're users of a platform that are repeating information from another source. Which specifically means that it's not our speech.
Random thought: If this holds up, doesn't that mean that you can't copyright just about anything? Youtube cover bands aren't performing "speech" because they're doing it based on something else, ergo since it's not speech it can't be copyrighted, and they can get fucked if some shitty fly by night company downloads and sells their work as MP3s.
Hell, you could take this to apply to say, Editing Wikipedia, or using Microsoft Office 365 to write that great American novel you've been working on. You used an interactive computer service (a website) with information from another information content provider (the dictionary).
