Does 47 U.S.C. Section 230 immunize internet service providers from any suit based on their own tortious misconduct simply because third-party content is also involved?

QUESTION PRESENTED John Doe’s high school science teacher used Snapchat when Doe was 15 years old to groom him, induce his drug abuse, and then sexually assault him. Under 47 U.S.C. Section 230(c)(1), an internet service provider cannot be treated as the “publisher” or “speaker” of information transmitted by another content provider. Doe does not seek to hold Snap liable as a publisher or speaker, but rather (1) as a host who negligently designed an environment rife with sexual predators and then lured children in, and (2) as a distributor who knew or should have known, given the technology it uses to screen content for advertisers, that Doe’s teacher was using Snapchat to groom him. The question presented is: Does 47 U.S.C. Section 230 immunize internet service providers from any suit based on their own tortious misconduct simply because third-party content is also involved?