First of all, here is a selection of the Findings section:

"(3)The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity."
...
"(5)Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services."

Obviously the intention of the law is to preserve diversity of political and cultural discourse. Not eliminate entire points of view which is the point in question here.

Next, here is the pertinent section of the law that I feel covers the

(c)Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
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.

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

In (c)(1) above it's important to define "interactive computer service":

> (2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

While it's true that at their basic foundations one could call Facebook an “interactive computer service” it has become SO MUCH more than that. It controls massive quantities of communication and the dissemination of editorials and diverse opinion. They can't hide behind this one vague definition with a straight face.

Just as a news organization would be held in contempt of the public interest for selectively editing a recording of someone to make them appear to say things that they didn't say, it's equally unethical to call oneself a provider of an "interactive computer service" while selectively editing the flow of diverse viewpoints and opinion to essentially accomplish the same cultural effect of selectively editing a recording.

Now, in (c)(2)(A) the "interactive computer service" is allowed to take steps to filter at its discretion what it deems "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." The last bit otherwise objectionable is essentially a blank check and really should not have been in the law. The US flag may in some circles be considered "objectionable". Should this give Facebook the right to censor patriotism to the US flag as it may be "objectionable"?

The problem is that "objectionable" is based on opinion where the other criteria are more closely definable.

I am all for blocking some speech. I just believe that, for example, incitement of violence means that one tells another to hurt another explicitly. Not implicitly.