Does this Court's holding in Packingham v. North Carolina override 47 U.S.C. § 230's civil liability indemnification for censorship of constitutionally protected speech?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does this Court’s holding in Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, at 1736-1736, 198 L. Ed. 2d 273 (2017) that First Amendment protections apply to social media platforms override 47 U.S.C. § 230’s civil liability indemnification for censorship of constitutionally protected speech? 2. Does the Petitioner, whose constitutionally protected speech was censored and lost revenues as a direct result of the Respondents’ claim he violated their “hate speech” policies, lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of 47 U.S.C. § 230 when the Responda ents employ it as a liability defense? 3. Does 47 U.S.C. § 230 allow private third parties the unrestricted ability to regulate protected speech in violation of the United States Constitution’s bar on Congress enacting laws that indirectly regulate protected speech in an unrestricted fashion? 4. Does the government’s participation and encouragement of social media censorship based on “hate speech” transform the Respondents into joint-enterprise state actors when they censor the Petitioner’s : protected speech on their social media platforms in re| ; sponse? ! 5. Because 47 U.S.C. § 230 relies on vague language and/or does not define its terms to provide indemnification from civil liability for censoring constitutionally protected speech, is it itself unconstitutional? | | | |