The Communications Decency Act encourages "Good Samaritan" acts to keep objectionable content off the internet. 47 U.S.C. §230(c). The Act states internet platforms are not liable for "good faith" acts to remove such content. §230(c)(2)(A). It clarifies that platforms may exercise that editorial control without being "treated as the publisher or speaker." §230(c)(1). The Ninth Circuit construed that Act to immunize an internet platform's knowing and deliberate decision to keep child pornography on the internet—a federal crime so damaging that Congress expressly allows victims to seek civil penalties. In response to repeated alerts that child pornography involving Petitioners was on its platform, Twitter asked for John Doe 1's ID, verifying he was a minor. Twitter, in its own words, "reviewed the content" showing coerced sex acts. But Twitter decided "no action will be taken." The video proliferated, and Twitter profited, until a Department of Homeland Security official intervened. The victims sued. Twitter claimed immunity. The Ninth Circuit agreed §230 precludes federal civil penalties for that knowing sexual exploitation of children. The questions presented are:

1. Whether §230's Good Samaritan immunity applies to the knowing possession and distribution of child pornography.

2. Whether §230's Good Samaritan immunity applies to knowingly benefiting from a sex-trafficking venture.

Whether Section 230's Good Samaritan immunity applies to the knowing possession and distribution of child pornography and knowingly benefiting from a sex-trafficking venture