Does 47 U.S.C. § 230 Immunity given to Internet Service Provider violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment's Right to Petition, and Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses?

2. Did the Courts below err in extending 47 U.S.C. § 230 Immunity to Defendant-Respondent without addressing the constitutionality of § 230 after Plaintiff-Petitioner had specifically challenged this statute's constitutionality—why?

3. Did the Courts below err in the applicability of 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) to every narrow class of persons y hence, depriving our citizens having valid and legitimate aggrievements of their right to seek redress under the statute?

4. The applicability of 47 U.S.C. § 230 Section images was held valid by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals y the western District Court of Appeals subsequently applied and warranty to such images which Circuit's Landings, in error, are decreed?

5. Were the Courts below erring, contrary to Texas Supreme Court controlling opinion as to what Texas Deceptive Trade Practices and Strict Liability Laws requires: a PLAINTIFF to have e personally paid/purchased a product which

6. Did the Courts below err in finding that Plaintiff-Petitioner's Original Complaint (Appendices A-C) failed to state a claim?

7. If the Original Complaint did fail to have a claim what Courts below err in dismissing WITH PREJUDICE?

Does H.R.S. § 230 immunity given to internet service providers violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment's Right to Petition, and Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses?