Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[Dr Grump]

Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.

However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

They do

 

[Skylar]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.

If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!

I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?

These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discrimination

Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.

Twitter should and likely would lose.

Nah, Twitter has a contract with Trump that Trump violated: the Twitter TOS. And that contracts makes Twitter the arbiter of violations of its own TOS.

Twitter would easily win. Which is why Trump doesn't bother.

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

Twitter has 15 categories of speech that will get you banned. And per their TOS, they get to decide when their Terms of Service have been violated.

So they most definitely have the authority to ban anyone who violates their terms of service. As Trump's ban demonstrates elegantly.

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

I don't think 'dictatorship' means what you think it means. These are private companies restricting access to a private website. Dictatorship has nothing to do with it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.

However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

They do

no they dont,, and thats been well proven,,

 

[Skylar]

Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.

However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

I disagree.

You are not required to use facebook OR Twitter.

It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service.

whats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???

What rules

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Totally wrong.
ORIGINALLY, the first amendment was not just restricted to government, but only the federal government, and the states and cities were free to infringe as they wanted to.
But NOT after the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment "incorporated" individual rights as implied by the Bill of Rights, to be protected from ALL infringement, by anyone.

And Twitter most definitely is NOT a "private actor", but a public medium that is supported by the government created Internet. If Twitter wants to be private and make its own rules, then it should go make its own global network and stop using the public internet, because the public internet comes with rules against infringement of individual rights.

Twitter most certainly be capable of being prosecuted for violating individual rights.
Just not sure that applies in this particular case.
That is for the courts to decide.

Nope. The incorporation doctrine selectively extends the Bill of Rights to the States. Not to 'anyone'.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Neither the incorporation doctrine nor the 14th amendment have a thing to do with twitter or other private businesses. They are about extending the limitations on the federal government to the states.

That is wrong.
Look as cases like where companies were denying abortion rights to employees, or fired people who campaigned for certain candidates off work hours.
The 14 amendment no only prohibits state laws from being used to infringe upon individual rights, but also to uphold individual rights when states have failed to pass legislation that would defend individual rights.

If you go back to the original context of the the Reconstruction era, what you are suggesting is that there was no legal recourse to stop the KKK from extorting and murdering Blacks, because the KKK was not an official act by government. And clearly that is wrong. The feds sent in troops to arrest KKK type private groups.

The 'denying abortion rights to employees' was an ACA violation. Its a specific federal law that was being violated. It had nothing to do with the 'selective incorportion doctrine'. As it was a federal law....you don't need the 14th amendment to extend the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government. The constitution already did that.

You need to actually read the arguments being offered by Bingham and Howard when presenting the 14th amendment to congress. The states were flagrantly violating the rights of recentl released slaves. And they had no recourse as the Bill of Rights didn't extend to the States. The express purpose of the 14th was to do exactly that: extend the bill of rights to the states.

A supreme court ruling Barron v. Baltimore prevented that, explicitly finding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. The 14th was created to rectify that.

Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate

It was about restraining State power. Not about private busineses.

You're simply mistaken

There is no argument at all that the original point of the 14th amendment was only to prevent state violations of individual rights, and was specifically over ex-slave rights.

But the POINT is that put the federal government in the position of having jurisdiction over individual rights protection, and that is NOT at all limited. It can't be limited. And the SCOTUS has continually expanded its incorporation over time, to now also include all individual rights against abuse by ANYONE.
And it obviously had to be that way. NO ONE has the authority or right to ever abuse or infringe upon any individual rights at all.

The mistake you are making is that you think there has to be specific legislation authorizing federal protection of individual rights before any action could be prosecuted. That is not a correct understanding of law. Rights and protects are infinite. They do not have to be codified and really can't be since they are infinite. When rights not listed specifically are violated, such as rights to privacy, then the violator is still prosecuted under some more general statute.

So can employers punish political expressions?
Absolutely and definitely NOT!
That has always been totally and completely illegal.
You can not possibly have a democratic republic with fair elections if you allow any political extortion.
While legislators are slow to actually write the specific legislation, it is easy to see political extortion is illegal, and it could be prosecuted under dozens of more general existing legislation, and would even violate privacy rights.

Again, just as the SCOTUS used to allow slavery and no longer does, the interpretation of individual rights being supreme is always the goal of any democratic republic, and the fact that trend has been slow is only due to confusion over who should ensure those individual rights best.
Anyone who thinks individuals can legally abuse the inherent rights of others, just does not at all understand what a democratic republic is.

Show me a Supreme Court ruling punishing a company for doing what Twitter did.

No one has ever done what Twitter did because it is so obviously illegal.

No one has ever banned someone on social media?

Happens all the time.

 

[Skylar]

Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.

However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

They do

no they dont,, and thats been well proven,,

'Proven' like your election hoax conspiracy.....where you poor souls just repeat the same gibberish to each other in an echo chamber and call it evidence?

Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS. Just like Parler is the arbiter of their terms of service......when the started removing some of Lin's posts.

 

[Skylar]

People keep missing the most obvious illegal act by Twitter and Facebook, that of obstructing the law through acts against lawmakers who dare hold social media as accountable as anyone else in defamation law suits, and for campaign finance fraud as their promoting their candidate and attacking the opposition is above and beyond in mobetary value that of the maximum donations allowed. One could also call it a bribe by the companies to be left alone and a quid pro quo for the liberal politicians as beneficiaries of the lopsided social media preferences in return for allowing them to operate as monopolies and break privacy laws etc. .

What law is being obstructed in your 'most obvious illegal act'? Specifically.

They keep preventing and bribing politicians on the protection from law suits.

Which lawsuits? Which politicians? What bribes?

The law protecting 'interactive computer services' from defamation for what was posted on those services was passed in 1996. Who are they bribing....Bob Dole?

You can go to those follow the donation money sites to see which tech people donate to which candidates but I'm talking about the fact their talking up candidates while demonizing opponents is free advertizing that has monetary value that even the IRS requires people to report, so technically those are campaign finances above the alloted maximum amount=campaign finance fraud and bribes. Example politicians requesting censorship of opponents in return for protection=bribe and quid pro quo.

So donating to the campaigns candidates you want to enact certain policies is a federal crime? Which law forbids this?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter.” ibid

But conservatives will nonetheless continue to advance the lie that Twitter does ‘violate’ free speech.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong.
For example, a private enterprise can not fire employees who appear on TV to lobby for a cause or party that the company dislikes.

Twitter didn't employ trump. Making your example moot.

And if the support of a given cause by an employee makes an employer look bad, they can fire that employee almost instantly. If Sean Hannity came out in favor of the KKK, Fox News could dump his ass in minutes.

So you're wrong twice.

And Twitter is NOT a private enterprise because they use the PUBLIC internet, which has rules for the protection of individual rights.
Free speech has not only applied to government since 1868, when the 14th amendment was passed.

The 14th amendment makes no mention of extending the bill of rights to private entities. It only cites the States as being subject to restrictions.

The 'incorporation doctrine' doesn't cite the Bill of Rights as restricting private entities. It only cites the States as being subject to restrictions of the Bill of Rights.

So who are you quoting in your claims that the 14th amendment extends the Bill of Rights to limit the actions of individuals? As its neither the 14th amendment nor the incorporation doctrine.

Rectal database perhaps?

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Totally wrong.
ORIGINALLY, the first amendment was not just restricted to government, but only the federal government, and the states and cities were free to infringe as they wanted to.
But NOT after the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment "incorporated" individual rights as implied by the Bill of Rights, to be protected from ALL infringement, by anyone.

And Twitter most definitely is NOT a "private actor", but a public medium that is supported by the government created Internet. If Twitter wants to be private and make its own rules, then it should go make its own global network and stop using the public internet, because the public internet comes with rules against infringement of individual rights.

Twitter most certainly be capable of being prosecuted for violating individual rights.
Just not sure that applies in this particular case.
That is for the courts to decide.

Nope. The incorporation doctrine selectively extends the Bill of Rights to the States. Not to 'anyone'.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Neither the incorporation doctrine nor the 14th amendment have a thing to do with twitter or other private businesses. They are about extending the limitations on the federal government to the states.

That is wrong.
Look as cases like where companies were denying abortion rights to employees, or fired people who campaigned for certain candidates off work hours.
The 14 amendment no only prohibits state laws from being used to infringe upon individual rights, but also to uphold individual rights when states have failed to pass legislation that would defend individual rights.

If you go back to the original context of the the Reconstruction era, what you are suggesting is that there was no legal recourse to stop the KKK from extorting and murdering Blacks, because the KKK was not an official act by government. And clearly that is wrong. The feds sent in troops to arrest KKK type private groups.

The 'denying abortion rights to employees' was an ACA violation. Its a specific federal law that was being violated. It had nothing to do with the 'selective incorportion doctrine'. As it was a federal law....you don't need the 14th amendment to extend the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government. The constitution already did that.

You need to actually read the arguments being offered by Bingham and Howard when presenting the 14th amendment to congress. The states were flagrantly violating the rights of recentl released slaves. And they had no recourse as the Bill of Rights didn't extend to the States. The express purpose of the 14th was to do exactly that: extend the bill of rights to the states.

A supreme court ruling Barron v. Baltimore prevented that, explicitly finding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. The 14th was created to rectify that.

Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate

It was about restraining State power. Not about private busineses.

You're simply mistaken

There is no argument at all that the original point of the 14th amendment was only to prevent state violations of individual rights, and was specifically over ex-slave rights.

But the POINT is that put the federal government in the position of having jurisdiction over individual rights protection, and that is NOT at all limited. It can't be limited.

Your 'point'.....is not in the 14th amendment. Nor is it mentioned in the 'incoporation doctrine'.

The relevant passage in the 14th amendment limited the States. The incorporation doctrine is the courts applying the Bill of the States using the 14th amendment.

That's it. Neither applied the Bill of Rights to restricting individual people.

That's just you citing your personal opinion. Not the law or the 14th amendment. Which obviously doesn't require Twitter to do anything.

The mistake you are making is that you think there has to be specific legislation authorizing federal protection of individual rights before any action could be prosecuted. That is not a correct understanding of law. Rights and protects are infinite. They do not have to be codified and really can't be since they are infinite. When rights not listed specifically are violated, such as rights to privacy, then the violator is still prosecuted under some more general statute.

My mistake is citing the ACTUAL 14th amendment? Because the restrictions that you've imagined aren't mentioned in the 14th amendment. Or the incorporation doctrine.

You're not citing the supreme court. You're citing yourself. And your personal opinion has no legal authority.

 

[Rigby5]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

Forums censoring based on political beliefs would also be illegal.
But the problem is no one is familiar with how to prosecute it on the internet.

 

[Skylar]

“First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter.” ibid

But conservatives will nonetheless continue to advance the lie that Twitter does ‘violate’ free speech.

They're going full communist, insisting that the private business Twitter is in fact owned by the collective.

 

[Rigby5]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

no they dont so stop lying,,,

You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.

Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

Forums censoring based on political beliefs would also be illegal.

Nonsense. Conservative boards will ban anyone whey don't like.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

But the problem is no one is familiar with how to prosecute it on the internet.

I posit another theory: Rather than 'no one being familiar with how to prosecute' the violations of rights you've imagined........you just don't understand the law.

As neither the 14th amendment nor the incorporation doctrine extend the restrctions in the Bill of Rights to people. But instead, State governments.

Your confusion is the only constant here.

 

[Dr Grump]

“First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter.” ibid

But conservatives will nonetheless continue to advance the lie that Twitter does ‘violate’ free speech.

They're going full communist, insisting that the private business Twitter is in fact owned by the collective.

Lol. True.

 

[Rigby5]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

no they dont so stop lying,,,

You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.

yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,

Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.

The main violence from the occupation of congress came from the police murdering an unarmed woman.
It is not clearly it is violent to occupy congress?
The founders did that type of thing all the time.

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

no they dont so stop lying,,,

You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.

Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.

And who gets to decide when a ban is for violations of the TOS and when its for 'political reasons'?

See, your argument is falling into the same pitfall again, where you assume your personal opinion is legally enforceable and binds Twitter to your judgment.

When in reality, Twitter is the arbitrator of its own TOS and your judgement has no role, legally or otherwise.

 

[progressive hunter]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.

Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.

I cant speak to the illegal part, but its clear they broke their agreement they made when they got their license and protections,,,

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.

Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.

I cant speak to the illegal part, but its clear they broke their agreement they made when they got their license and protections,,,

Broke their agreement.....according to who?

See, this is a huge sticking point. As per the TOS that say, Trump agreed to with Twitter.....Twitter is the arbiter of the violations of its own TOS. And Trump agreed to these terms.

You guys keep trying to push your personal opinions as legally enforcible judgements that define violations of the law. And they don't. The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.....is the TOS. Over which Twitter is the arbiter in terms of TOS violations.

 

[progressive hunter]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.

Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.

I cant speak to the illegal part, but its clear they broke their agreement they made when they got their license and protections,,,

Broke their agreement.....according to who?

See, this is a huge sticking point. As per the TOS that say, Trump agreed to with Twitter.....Twitter is the arbiter of the violations of its own TOS. And Trump agreed to these terms.

You guys keep trying to push your personal opinions as legally enforcible judgements that define violations of the law. And they don't. The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.....is the TOS. Over which Twitter is the arbiter in terms of TOS violations.

sorry I dont have time or desire to educate someone late to the game,,,

have a nice day,,,

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

This forum does the same. That would mean this forum is fascist, according to you. Why do you participate in what you believe is a fascist site?

no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]
You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.

Sites legally ban people for making personal attacks, against board rules intended to protect people.
Twitter is censoring a whole spectrum of legal political believe, which is totally different and illegal.

I cant speak to the illegal part, but its clear they broke their agreement they made when they got their license and protections,,,

Broke their agreement.....according to who?

See, this is a huge sticking point. As per the TOS that say, Trump agreed to with Twitter.....Twitter is the arbiter of the violations of its own TOS. And Trump agreed to these terms.

You guys keep trying to push your personal opinions as legally enforcible judgements that define violations of the law. And they don't. The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.....is the TOS. Over which Twitter is the arbiter in terms of TOS violations.

sorry I dont have time or desire to educate someone late to the game,,,

have a nice day,,,

Laughing......your concession is noted and accepted, little one.

Come on back when you have something intelligent to add to the debate.