You’re quoting the wrong section. That’s not what the 26 words refers to. It’s like the third sentence of the article.
NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!!!
GodDAMMIT!!! You are a serious cluefuck!!!
They don't get the PROTECTIONS of the 26 words if they edit material that is NOT "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."
You are being deliberately obtuse because you are ASS HURT!!!
.
I'm not being obtuse. You're blatantly misreading the law.
47 USC 230(c)(1) establishes that no website can be considered the speaker of information posted by their users. Period full stop. That means a third party cannot sue the website because of of the website's users posted something defamatory about that party. There are other ways this section protects the website, but that's the easiest example.
47 USC 230(c)(2), the section you're misreading, is more complicated. It does not place a contingency on 230(c)(1) but further immunizes the website from litigation from the user if their comment is deleted. That being said, 230(c)(1) is interpreted broadly and makes 230(c)(2) actually unnecessary.
You can read one example of a person suing Twitter because they removed her account here:
But there are a lot of such cases.