[n]o 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.
Furthermore, 47 U.S.C § 230(e)(2) says in part that
No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
Now, Acme will probably point to the recent Hare v. Richie case where discovery was allowed to continue in spite of a website’s contention that is was protected by § 230. There are three things to consider. First, discovery was allowed in that case to determine if the site operator was involved in producing any of the offending content. Second, the plaintiff wound up losing the case. It was dismissed.
Third, discovery in a similar lawsuit involving Hogewash! would lead to the same result.