The American constitution is a vaguely worded 18th century document whose interpretation depends entirely on the whims of nine political appointees.
A liability shield isn’t much of a shield if every content moderation decision is potential liability under the extremely murky standard of American constitutionality.
If living law is what you're concerned about then I think Brtain's tradition of parliamentary sovereignty is as close as you can get to it.
The constitution and the court system with its legalistic approach if anything contradict living law, which is precisely law not by means of constitutions, statutes or courts.
Spot on, the history of horrible decisions (Dred Scott, Kelo v New London, Citizens United, Wickard v Filburn) the weight of some of which still burdens us should be evidence enough of a dangerously broken system. One need not even wander into the impossibly cloudy question of what "shall not be infringed" means.
A liability shield isn’t much of a shield if every content moderation decision is potential liability under the extremely murky standard of American constitutionality.