• George Soros meddling: Billionaire pumped £400,000 in anti-Brexit campaign
• Soros Looking to Make Obscene Profits From Funding European 'Forced Migration'
• Europe, MH17, Soros, Crimea: Top quotes from Putin's fiery Austrian interview
• Leaked docs show Soros bankrolled schemes to add 10 million illegals as voters by 2018

"Who is the commander of the armed forces, Donald Trump from Miami?" president Maduro wondered aloud after the US leader virtually issued an ultimatum to the Venezuelan armed forces, warning officers they won't have any possible "way out" unless they accept Guaido's "generous offer" to defect without retribution while they still can.

"They think they own the country!" Maduro said on state television, noting that Trump's "arrogant orders" are an "offense to [the] dignity" of the Venezuelan military, who stand ready to defend the country's sovereignty.

The 56-year-old Venezuelan leader also slammed Trump's attack on socialism in his country and elsewhere, pointing out that the White House's "Nazi-style discourse" seeks to limit political diversity and impose a "colonial model" of US "supremacy" across Latin America. "They want to enslave us," Maduro said.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) states: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

This is a good provision. It means that, for example, if you run a blogging platform and someone posts a terrorist threat in the comments section, you're not treated as the person making the threat. Without Section 230, many social media networks could be functionally unable to operate.

In order to be protected by Section 230, companies like Facebook should be "neutral public forums." On the flip side, they should be considered to be a "publisher or speaker" of user content if they pick and choose what gets published or spoken.

As I expressed to Mark Zuckerberg, as a private business Facebook has a clear First Amendment right to publish whatever it wants on its website within the bounds of the law. The company can support political causes and oppose ones it disagrees with, just like a private citizen can speak his or her mind or agitate against opposing views.

But if Facebook is busy censoring legal, protected speech for political reasons, the company should be held accountable for the posts it lets through. And it should not enjoy any special congressional immunity from liability for its actions.

As we discussed at the Senate hearing, for years it has been evident that Facebook has actively censored or suppressed conservative speech.

• Facebook contradicts its Senate testimony in court, claims to be a 'platform and not a media publisher'
• Silicon Valley giants aren't the same as Christian bakeries