I don't understand the sudden fuss. I get that Trump tweeted something, but the timescale isn't realistic, they would rather simply hold the bill until Trump is out of office. It's been on the house desk for months (since August, when that senate vote was actually held).
In practice, this just means that he will... which is the only bill on the table.
If there was full repeal in play, it would not pass Republican senate muster, according to the
Republican senate themselves. If Trump tried to force it, they'd just wait a few months or shoot for simple majority, which could mean no changes to 230 at-all.
Further, there isn't a single mention of USMCA in this entire thread, which to my understanding (and most business news sites afaik) reiterated and expanded protections that are
normally granted by 230, codifying them into law in two places. The stricter restriction on government & legal power is always the one that takes effect, or at least that's my understanding, but some of the wording does seem speculative, so you'd have to show that the court case was somehow "adopting or maintaining a measure to treat a supplier as liable for harm." That doesn't seem that different from 230 to me.
@Null
Have your law guys said anything about the viability of cases under USMCA protections instead of section 230? Does it work how it seems to work? I could be entirely off-base here, but even if it isn't protective, it seems like a huge mitigating factor to any attempt to get 230 repealed
entirely, since it would severely undermine the US' ability to negotiate trade.
