We aren't discussing one-time delivery but an ongoing availability as it is present on the website and would be delivered for weeks/months before a court order to take it down was received. This is more akin to a broadcast where someone picks the channel (url) than the example you provided.
That isn't the same thing as a sealed point-to-point non-public delivery of a message and to imply it is equal and equivalent is disingenuous.
There was at one point a tiny number of very expensive to run networks which could reasonably be supposed to bear the small cost of putting its money where its mouth was every time they showed someone on the tv.
Your concept would in fact basically either go laughably unenforced or destroy many to many communication on the internet as we know it as there would be no large channels for distributing any information of any sort as showing anything that couldn't be shown on nickalodeon would be an unacceptable risk in a world where most communication has few viewers and earns no/little money.
Once again I am at a loss to understand what is so bad about the way things are that this seems like a good solution.
I'm pretty sure you completely misunderstood what I said given I was replying to a chain of comments like this one:
> > The immunity must be limited to sites that are neutral, in the same way that non-political religious organizations are tax-exempt. Why? Because to claim that a site isn't responsible for a user's content is fine, until the site starts editing, censoring or weighting certain points of view. When the site loses its neutrality it ceases to be a conduit of content and instead becomes content. Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional.
That isn't the same thing as a sealed point-to-point non-public delivery of a message and to imply it is equal and equivalent is disingenuous.