Only the anti-indecency and anti-obscenity provisions were struck down. Section 230 remained, and is to this date one of the best pieces of legislation regarding the internet; it largely immunizes an online service provider against the activities of its users.
How does that relate to the DMCA's Safe Harbor provisions? I don't know as much about the CDA. Mostly I'm curious as you say this is "one of the best pieces of legislation", and how it relates in strength to DMCA's own provisions.
CDA 230 explicitly excludes safe harbor for intellectual property claims. DMCA 512 provisions created a safe harbor for that gap in CDA 230 (provided you meet certain criteria).
A court that takes a free speech absolutist position in one case is more likely to protect other forms of speech, not less. I'm an extreme civil libertarian and I strongly supported the Citizens United ruling.
There's no constitutional reason that the bill of rights should extend automatically to corporations (nor to robots or inanimate objects, for that matter). I'd be suspicious of any court using a first amendment argument to protect corporate interests.
If I have free speech rights, and if you have free speech rights, why should we not have free speech rights if we form a corporation and speak with one (amplified) voice?
Do you also believe that non-profits and churches should be able to freely lobby? Currently both are severely curtailed in their political speech, unlike for-profit corporations. This is why there are two ACLU organizations: http://www.aclu.org/american-civil-liberties-union-and-aclu-...
