"First Amendment scholars said Friday morning that Mr. Trump and his allies had it backward and that he was the one trying to stifle speech that clashes with his own views.
“Fundamentally this dispute is about whether Twitter has the right to disagree with, criticize, and respond to the president,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “Obviously, it does. It is remarkable and truly chilling that the president and his advisers seem to believe otherwise.”
Revoking Section 230 protections would expose Twitter and other online platforms to such expansive potential legal vulnerability that it would undermine the fundamentals of their businesses and perhaps make it untenable to continue in anything resembling the current system in which they provide online marketplaces of ideas where almost anything goes.
Paradoxically, it would also remove the very legal standard that has allowed Mr. Trump to use Twitter so effectively to communicate with his 80 million followers no matter how incendiary, false and even defamatory his messages may be."
Twitter said the tweets, which implied that protesters in Minneapolis could be shot, glorified violence — the first time it had applied such warnings to any public figure’s posts.
www.nytimes.com
...................................................................................................
IOW, he is meddling with the platform he most uses to tell lies on.