The bill Online Freedom and Viewpoint Diversity Act (OFVDA) would, if, passed, amend CDA 230. It includes the following text:

RESPONSIBILITY: For purposes of subparagraph (A), being responsible in whole or in part for the creation or development of information

(i) includes any instance in which a person or entity editorializes or affirmatively and substantively modifies the content of another person or entity;

On Twitter one can retweet someone's original text as a quote and add your own text.

  1. Would retweeting with comment like that count as "editorializes" under the OFVDA?
  2. If so, what effect would it have under the OFVDA?

1 Answer 1


This is how a court will deal with it

  1. Is "editorialize" defined in the Bill?

  2. Is "editorialize" defined in statute or case law?

  3. Is "editorialize" defined in common usage as which may or may not involve having a dictionary definition? Dictionaries lag behind language so they are not definitive. That said, a legislature will usually not use words that are so new that they haven't reached the dictionary, and "editorialize" is not such a word anyway.

Now, I don't think it's defined in the act and I am not aware of a legal definition that is different from common English usage. So from Merium-Webster:

  1. to express an opinion in the form of an editorial

  2. to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts

  3. to express an opinion (as on a controversial issue)

In the context of the Bill, the third definition seems most appropriate: "to express an opinion".

Whether a comment is "editorializing" will depend on the comment: "Hey, look at this!" is not editorializing; "What a crock!" is.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .