progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,638
- 38,405
- 2,615
why would I??
youre like a broken record that refuses any other input than what youve been instructed to believe and say,,
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment
- Thread starter pyetro
- Start date
why would I??
youre like a broken record that refuses any other input than what youve been instructed to believe and say,,
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
It’s possible it could be illegal for other statues and laws on the books. There are many anti-discrimination laws for example.It’s not about it be legal or not. It’s about them silencing free speech and being a bunch of fascists.Besides, if Twitter wanted to be one-sided, it wouldn't be illegal. Private companies don't have to be "fair and balanced".Anyone with a functioning brain who reads my post will believe me. You idiotically claimed Twitter only enforces their rules "against one political side." I posted an Antifa group that was banned. That proves you wrong. It's not my problem that rendered you pouting like a 4 year old girl.you sound desperate for people to believe you,,,LOLyou didnt prove anything,,LOLyou do know I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when I call you a liar dont you???If l looked, i could find more, but I didn't need to to prove your idiotic claim that Twitter only does this to "one political side."OMG!!! they did one group,,,I didn't lie just because you're an ignorant buffoon. Here's Twitter banning an Antifa group because they used Twitter to incite violence...but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
Twitter Bans Antifa Student Group
The Revolutionary Student Front is an Antifa student group at the University of Texas at Austin that thinks “bricks belong best thrown at pig heads” and yet also hosts “self-defense” classes. The group boasted a little over 2,000 Twitter followers until getting suspended, apparently for no...campusunmasked.com
what about th other hundreds if not thousands of other accounts??
the only other option is an ignorant fool and useful idiot,,,
I'm ignorant or a liar for proving you wrong?
That's an interesting approach.
You keep telling yourself that, shvantz. Whatever makes you feel better about being proven wrong.
There's no law against bias in banning.Did you educate the Trump supporter who said in this thread that what Twitter did was "obviously illegal"? Here's the link so you can school him:It’s not about it be legal or not. It’s about them silencing free speech and being a bunch of fascists.Besides, if Twitter wanted to be one-sided, it wouldn't be illegal. Private companies don't have to be "fair and balanced".Anyone with a functioning brain who reads my post will believe me. You idiotically claimed Twitter only enforces their rules "against one political side." I posted an Antifa group that was banned. That proves you wrong. It's not my problem that rendered you pouting like a 4 year old girl.you sound desperate for people to believe you,,,LOLyou didnt prove anything,,LOLyou do know I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when I call you a liar dont you???If l looked, i could find more, but I didn't need to to prove your idiotic claim that Twitter only does this to "one political side."OMG!!! they did one group,,,I didn't lie just because you're an ignorant buffoon. Here's Twitter banning an Antifa group because they used Twitter to incite violence...but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
Twitter Bans Antifa Student Group
The Revolutionary Student Front is an Antifa student group at the University of Texas at Austin that thinks “bricks belong best thrown at pig heads” and yet also hosts “self-defense” classes. The group boasted a little over 2,000 Twitter followers until getting suspended, apparently for no...
what about th other hundreds if not thousands of other accounts??
the only other option is an ignorant fool and useful idiot,,,
I'm ignorant or a liar for proving you wrong?
That's an interesting approach.
You keep telling yourself that, shvantz. Whatever makes you feel better about being proven wrong.
There's no law against bias in banning.
Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment | Page 10 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Two problems with the idea. First, Political belief is not a federally protected class.
Second, you'd have a very difficult time arguing that banning due to TOS violations were discrimination even if political belief were a protected class.
Which, again, it isn't.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
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?
Twitter does not have to be your employer in order to be prevented from discriminating or censorship.
Twitter is bound by the FCC regulations for fair use, since Twitter is relying entirely on the public Internet for its operations. And the FCC regulations do not allow for political censorship.
Employers can only fire public spokespeople who sign a contract saying they won't do anything to harm their image and possibly make the company look bad.
Someone like Sean Hannity would be bound by a special contract.
As for incorporation of the Bill of Rights to protect all individual rights even from personal private abuse, that is what the SCOTUS has slowly been doing.
For example, the way employee sexual orientation rights are being protected by SCOTUS rulings.
And if you say that is federal legislation and not the constitution, you would wrong because there can be no federal legislation unless first authorized in the constitution.
{...
Practical Implications for Employers on Recent SCOTUS Ruling Giving Title VII Protection for LGBT+ Employees
After the Supreme Court’s decision, employers in every state must now understand that Title VII protections from sex discrimination also prohibit discrimination against LGBT+ employees.
By John R. Richards and Nicholas Corsano | June 25, 2020 at 03:50 PM
...}
Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment
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...
www.usmessageboard.com
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
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.
why would I??
youre like a broken record that refuses any other input than what youve been instructed to believe and say,,
The law doesn't change just because you made up an opinion.
You're too reliant on the concept that anything you imagine is as valid as actual evidence. Its the crippling influence of OANN and NewMaxx that feeds you a steady diet of personal opinion as fact. Alas, it isn't, especially in the context of the law.
Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS. And absolutely has the authority to restrict speech on its platform. Twitter has 15 distinct categories of speech with about 50 different specific types of speech that will violate its TOS.
The idea that Twitter lacks the authority to restrict any speech on its platform is provably false.
Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,391
- 9,170
- 1,340
It’s not about it be legal or not. It’s about them silencing free speech and being a bunch of fascists.Besides, if Twitter wanted to be one-sided, it wouldn't be illegal. Private companies don't have to be "fair and balanced".Anyone with a functioning brain who reads my post will believe me. You idiotically claimed Twitter only enforces their rules "against one political side." I posted an Antifa group that was banned. That proves you wrong. It's not my problem that rendered you pouting like a 4 year old girl.you sound desperate for people to believe you,,,LOLyou didnt prove anything,,LOLyou do know I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when I call you a liar dont you???If l looked, i could find more, but I didn't need to to prove your idiotic claim that Twitter only does this to "one political side."OMG!!! they did one group,,,I didn't lie just because you're an ignorant buffoon. Here's Twitter banning an Antifa group because they used Twitter to incite violence...but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
Twitter Bans Antifa Student Group
The Revolutionary Student Front is an Antifa student group at the University of Texas at Austin that thinks “bricks belong best thrown at pig heads” and yet also hosts “self-defense” classes. The group boasted a little over 2,000 Twitter followers until getting suspended, apparently for no...
what about th other hundreds if not thousands of other accounts??
the only other option is an ignorant fool and useful idiot,,,
I'm ignorant or a liar for proving you wrong?
That's an interesting approach.
You keep telling yourself that, shvantz. Whatever makes you feel better about being proven wrong.
There's no law against bias in banning.
No one is silencing anyone’s free speech. They simply said those who incite violence and spread misinformation cannot use their platform to do so.It’s not about it be legal or not. It’s about them silencing free speech and being a bunch of fascists.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 62,638
- 38,405
- 2,615
no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
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.
why would I??
youre like a broken record that refuses any other input than what youve been instructed to believe and say,,
The law doesn't change just because you made up an opinion.
You're too reliant on the concept that anything you imagine is as valid as actual evidence. Its the crippling influence of OANN and NewMaxx that feeds you a steady diet of personal opinion as fact. Alas, it isn't, especially in the context of the law.
Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS. And absolutely has the authority to restrict speech on its platform. Twitter has 15 distinct categories of speech with about 50 different specific types of speech that will violate its TOS.
The idea that Twitter lacks the authority to restrict any speech on its platform is provably false.
see youre to late to the game,, its not about the law but about their agreement when they got their license,,,
Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,209
- 245
A professor should know that free speech applies to the government and not private enterprisesA basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
Unless we are willing to consider each and every source of private power as a governmentality that must be treated the same.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
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?
Twitter does not have to be your employer in order to be prevented from discriminating or censorship.
Employment protections don't apply to non-employees. You're citing Employment law as the basis of your argument and it simply doesn't work. As Trump never worked for Twitter.
Your example is obviously invalid.
Twitter is bound by the FCC regulations for fair use, since Twitter is relying entirely on the public Internet for its operations. And the FCC regulations do not allow for political censorship.
What political censorship? Again, Trump was banned by Twitter due to violations of their Terms of Service. Per those Terms of Service, which Trump agreed to, Twitter is the sole arbiter. That TOS is the binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.
Again, you keep offering your personal opinion as legally authoritative and legally binding Twitter to whatever you decide. And it isn't and it doesn't. That you believe that Trump's banning was politically motivated is irrelevant. As you aren't cited by Twitter's TOS as an authoritative arbiter of those Terms of Service.
Twitter is. And they found a TOS violation. Banning someone for a TOS violation is something that Twitter most definitely has the authority to do.
Last edited:
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
no they dont so stop lying,,,/QUOTE]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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
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.
why would I??
youre like a broken record that refuses any other input than what youve been instructed to believe and say,,
The law doesn't change just because you made up an opinion.
You're too reliant on the concept that anything you imagine is as valid as actual evidence. Its the crippling influence of OANN and NewMaxx that feeds you a steady diet of personal opinion as fact. Alas, it isn't, especially in the context of the law.
Twitter is the arbiter of its own TOS. And absolutely has the authority to restrict speech on its platform. Twitter has 15 distinct categories of speech with about 50 different specific types of speech that will violate its TOS.
The idea that Twitter lacks the authority to restrict any speech on its platform is provably false.
see youre to late to the game,, its not about the law but about their agreement when they got their license,,,
Or......your arguments are broken. And rather than try to shore them up, you're giving me excuses why you can't.
You have a rather obvious tell there.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
No one is silencing anyone’s free speech. They simply said those who incite violence and spread misinformation cannot use their platform to do so.
Trump can say whatever he likes. Just not necessraily using someone else's private property.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
A professor should know that free speech applies to the government and not private enterprisesA basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
Unless we are willing to consider each and every source of private power as a governmentality that must be treated the same.
That's one of the major reasons why the Bill of Rights restricts governments specifically. And why the Bill of Rights cited Congress in the Bill of Rights, with the 14th amendment citing the States as being limited.
But neither restrict individual people.
bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,163
- 47,312
- 2,180
Tribe is a leftwing propagandist. You prove nothing by quoting him.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
Tribe is a leftwing propagandist. You prove nothing by quoting him.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
Dude, to you anything that contradicts what you want to believe is 'left wing propaganda'.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
It’s possible it could be illegal for other statues and laws on the books. There are many anti-discrimination laws for example.It’s not about it be legal or not. It’s about them silencing free speech and being a bunch of fascists.Besides, if Twitter wanted to be one-sided, it wouldn't be illegal. Private companies don't have to be "fair and balanced".Anyone with a functioning brain who reads my post will believe me. You idiotically claimed Twitter only enforces their rules "against one political side." I posted an Antifa group that was banned. That proves you wrong. It's not my problem that rendered you pouting like a 4 year old girl.you sound desperate for people to believe you,,,LOLyou didnt prove anything,,LOLyou do know I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when I call you a liar dont you???If l looked, i could find more, but I didn't need to to prove your idiotic claim that Twitter only does this to "one political side."OMG!!! they did one group,,,I didn't lie just because you're an ignorant buffoon. Here's Twitter banning an Antifa group because they used Twitter to incite violence...but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
Twitter Bans Antifa Student Group
The Revolutionary Student Front is an Antifa student group at the University of Texas at Austin that thinks “bricks belong best thrown at pig heads” and yet also hosts “self-defense” classes. The group boasted a little over 2,000 Twitter followers until getting suspended, apparently for no...
what about th other hundreds if not thousands of other accounts??
the only other option is an ignorant fool and useful idiot,,,
I'm ignorant or a liar for proving you wrong?
That's an interesting approach.
You keep telling yourself that, shvantz. Whatever makes you feel better about being proven wrong.
There's no law against bias in banning.Did you educate the Trump supporter who said in this thread that what Twitter did was "obviously illegal"? Here's the link so you can school him:It’s not about it be legal or not. It’s about them silencing free speech and being a bunch of fascists.Besides, if Twitter wanted to be one-sided, it wouldn't be illegal. Private companies don't have to be "fair and balanced".Anyone with a functioning brain who reads my post will believe me. You idiotically claimed Twitter only enforces their rules "against one political side." I posted an Antifa group that was banned. That proves you wrong. It's not my problem that rendered you pouting like a 4 year old girl.you sound desperate for people to believe you,,,LOLyou didnt prove anything,,LOLyou do know I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when I call you a liar dont you???If l looked, i could find more, but I didn't need to to prove your idiotic claim that Twitter only does this to "one political side."OMG!!! they did one group,,,I didn't lie just because you're an ignorant buffoon. Here's Twitter banning an Antifa group because they used Twitter to incite violence...but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
Twitter Bans Antifa Student Group
The Revolutionary Student Front is an Antifa student group at the University of Texas at Austin that thinks “bricks belong best thrown at pig heads” and yet also hosts “self-defense” classes. The group boasted a little over 2,000 Twitter followers until getting suspended, apparently for no...
what about th other hundreds if not thousands of other accounts??
the only other option is an ignorant fool and useful idiot,,,
I'm ignorant or a liar for proving you wrong?
That's an interesting approach.
You keep telling yourself that, shvantz. Whatever makes you feel better about being proven wrong.
There's no law against bias in banning.
Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment | Page 10 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Two problems with the idea. First, Political belief is not a federally protected class.
Second, you'd have a very difficult time arguing that banning due to TOS violations were discrimination even if political belief were a protected class.
Which, again, it isn't.
It’s possible it could be illegal for other statues and laws on the books. There are many anti-discrimination laws for example.It’s not about it be legal or not. It’s about them silencing free speech and being a bunch of fascists.Besides, if Twitter wanted to be one-sided, it wouldn't be illegal. Private companies don't have to be "fair and balanced".Anyone with a functioning brain who reads my post will believe me. You idiotically claimed Twitter only enforces their rules "against one political side." I posted an Antifa group that was banned. That proves you wrong. It's not my problem that rendered you pouting like a 4 year old girl.you sound desperate for people to believe you,,,LOLyou didnt prove anything,,LOLyou do know I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when I call you a liar dont you???If l looked, i could find more, but I didn't need to to prove your idiotic claim that Twitter only does this to "one political side."OMG!!! they did one group,,,I didn't lie just because you're an ignorant buffoon. Here's Twitter banning an Antifa group because they used Twitter to incite violence...but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
Twitter Bans Antifa Student Group
The Revolutionary Student Front is an Antifa student group at the University of Texas at Austin that thinks “bricks belong best thrown at pig heads” and yet also hosts “self-defense” classes. The group boasted a little over 2,000 Twitter followers until getting suspended, apparently for no...
what about th other hundreds if not thousands of other accounts??
the only other option is an ignorant fool and useful idiot,,,
I'm ignorant or a liar for proving you wrong?
That's an interesting approach.
You keep telling yourself that, shvantz. Whatever makes you feel better about being proven wrong.
There's no law against bias in banning.Did you educate the Trump supporter who said in this thread that what Twitter did was "obviously illegal"? Here's the link so you can school him:It’s not about it be legal or not. It’s about them silencing free speech and being a bunch of fascists.Besides, if Twitter wanted to be one-sided, it wouldn't be illegal. Private companies don't have to be "fair and balanced".Anyone with a functioning brain who reads my post will believe me. You idiotically claimed Twitter only enforces their rules "against one political side." I posted an Antifa group that was banned. That proves you wrong. It's not my problem that rendered you pouting like a 4 year old girl.you sound desperate for people to believe you,,,LOLyou didnt prove anything,,LOLyou do know I am giving you the benefit of the doubt when I call you a liar dont you???If l looked, i could find more, but I didn't need to to prove your idiotic claim that Twitter only does this to "one political side."OMG!!! they did one group,,,I didn't lie just because you're an ignorant buffoon. Here's Twitter banning an Antifa group because they used Twitter to incite violence...but its only enforced against one political side,,,True, it applies to all Twitter members who do what Trump did. Same as this forum.liar,,, this goes far beyond just trump,,That is exactly why they banned him.thats not the issue,,,Nutcase, Twitter banned Impeached Trump to prevent him from further incitement of violence.yes they do,, but thats not what twitter is doing and you know it,,You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
and you playing word games to fit your false narrative is the same as lying,,, so stop lying,,,
but you knew that and why you lied,,
Twitter Bans Antifa Student Group
The Revolutionary Student Front is an Antifa student group at the University of Texas at Austin that thinks “bricks belong best thrown at pig heads” and yet also hosts “self-defense” classes. The group boasted a little over 2,000 Twitter followers until getting suspended, apparently for no...
what about th other hundreds if not thousands of other accounts??
the only other option is an ignorant fool and useful idiot,,,
I'm ignorant or a liar for proving you wrong?
That's an interesting approach.
You keep telling yourself that, shvantz. Whatever makes you feel better about being proven wrong.
There's no law against bias in banning.
Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment | Page 10 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Two problems with the idea. First, Political belief is not a federally protected class.
Second, you'd have a very difficult time arguing that banning due to TOS violations were discrimination even if political belief were a protected class.
Which, again, it isn't.
Political expression is a protected activity, not a protected class.
What you do is just as important to protect as who you are.
Arguing TOS violation claim are false is very easy to do.
And clearly occupying congress is exactly the kind of nonviolent political expression the founders intended to protect.
I do not like Trump, but attempting to violate his rights only makes everyone else wrong.
meaner gene
Diamond Member
- Feb 11, 2017
- 21,909
- 18,114
- 2,290
Tribe knows the law. He teaches the law. You know nothing about law, or you would know somebody convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, had to use a deadly weapon.Tribe is a leftwing propagandist. You prove nothing by quoting him.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
Political expression is a protected activity, not a protected class.
Anti-discrimination laws apply to specific protected classes. That's the basis of their protection.
If you're outside these protected classes, you're outside of the protection of these laws. Its one of the reasons why LGBT folks can be discriminated against in certain states. As sexual orientation isn't a federally protected class .
And political belief isn't a protected class either.
Arguing TOS violation claim are false is very easy to do.
Obviously not, as Trump's banning demonstrates elegantly.
Again, you keep starting from the assumption that anything you believe is legal evidence. The courts don't accept your made up pseudo-legal nonsense as meaning anything. And you aren't recognized as an arbiter of the TOS for Twitter.
Twitter is recognized as the arbiter of the Terms of Service on Twitter. And its that TOS that is the binding agreement between Trump and Twitter.
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
Thought Ronnie Raygun got rid of the Fair Use Doctrine?its right there in my comment,, not my fault you cant read simple english,,What the fuck are you even trying to whine about in the first place? What is your point?where did I say the government should do anything???Lol for fuck sake. You can have that opinion, but to suggest the GOVERNMENT should prohibit companies from operating in this way makes you sound like a complete dumbass.its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,
Twitter is not just a private company, but a front end for the public Internet, which demands fair use under FCC laws.
So it is illegal for Twitter to use apply a personal political bias.
Dr Grump
Platinum Member
Banned heaps of people this site has..You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 52,660
- 15,671
- 2,180
Banned heaps of people this site has..You're a moron. This site bans members and deletes posts for rules violations just as Twitter does.no they dont so stop lying,,,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?Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:
[/URL]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.
Yup. And they had the authority to do so.
If I got banned, I might be a little butthurt......but I'd have no particular legal recourse. As I have no right to access the board. Its a privilege that continues as long as I abide the boards rules.
Abides the board's rules according to who? According to the moderators and board owners.
Rigby5
Diamond Member
Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discriminationI 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 ?
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.
Wrong.
When it comes to the Internet, the FCC is the arbiter, not Twitter, and NEVER is it legal for any company like Twitter to be it own arbiter, and Twitter would have to prove in court that Trump violated those terms, which I don't he did. And even if he did, it would still be a crime by Twitter because they allow much more provocative Tweets all the time.
And it is you who do not understand what a dictatorship is. In a society that no longer has individual face to fact contact, but instead entirely relies on electronic media, then illegal censorship of that media ensures a dictatorship. In fact, we have pretty much always been a dictatorship since Hearst took over mass media and created the illegal and fake Spanish American war, with like like "Remember the Maine".
And again, these are NOT private companies but the means by which the public is allowed access to the public internet, so has to be very strongly regulated against discrimination or partisan censorship.
And again, I am totally against Trump and this has nothing to do with Trump.
Twitter is just way beyond what the law can allow.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 122
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 3
- Views
- 956
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 9K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 79
- Views
- 261
- Replies
- 476
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 180
- Views
- 906
- Replies
- 64
- Views
- 371
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8505
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-