>any “information service, system, internet search engine, or access software provider operated by a company that owns and operates” a theme park or large entertainment complex<p>That is completely ridiculous. I wonder what the justification for this is, but it sounds like a line from "Yes Minister".
Setting aside the theme park idiocy, I'm actually all for limiting bans to 60 days. Go be an asshole in public for a day, then take two months off. Come back, and if you haven't learned your lesson, you get another 60 days to cool off. And yeah, you're on a hair-trigger if you've just come back from a ban.<p>Reducing assholery by 60/61 seems about as good as banning it 100% to me. I'm even all for letting the Asshole in Chief come back to FB/Twitter -- though of all people he should be able to just start up a new ban-free channel (and watch it be overcome by spammers in a few seconds, because that's what happens when a channel doesn't moderate).
So politicians are formally setting themselves up as more equal than others, able to violate a site's TOS with impunity, where the rest of us can't.<p>Royal roads are back, baby!
Hmm, I think the argument could be made that this violates Article 4 of the Constitution, and almost certainly at odds with the Commerce Clause.<p>The exclusion of theme parks and entertainment complexes is arbitrary, and not really helped by that state senator’s comment.