This seems to be the crux of it:
> 2. If an interactive computer service provider restricts, censors, or suppresses information that does not pertain to obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable subject matter, the interactive computer service provider is liable in a civil action for damages to the person whose speech is restricted, censored, or suppressed, and to any person who reasonably otherwise would have received the writing, speech, or publication.
Later (6a) it seems to specify that it's
> material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable...
Soooo, what's the point of this? If I am a provider and I personally consider Trump to be "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable," then I can ban him without being affected by this bill, right? Does anyone think Twitter or FB or any of these groups banning Trump didn't find him objectionable?
Am I completely misreading this?