Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[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.
Twitter is only obligated to it's board of directors and shareholders (less so)

But the real problem is MUCH deeper.

The left also owns the entire Internet....all the cellular Networks....and all the Media.

That's in question. I thought there was a precedent set back in the 1880's, about that sort of
shit.

When we discuss "public utilities" they are under Federal Guidelines and have to answer
to the Federal and/or State government...but they are all privately owned companies.

All these places like facebook...twiiter, whatever...are means of communicating with
each other. USMB, might just be considered a opinion outlet. Twitter is the modern day
phone...telegraph. I don't care who owns the phone company they cannot listen into
my phone calls without legal permission.

This could be the perfect case for SCOTUS to finally reel in these idiots.

USMB fits the definition of an 'interactive computer service' to a T.

Anything you do to Twitter, you do to this board.

The fact it is hard, costly, and not worth it to litigate against a small board like USMB, does not mean it may not be worth it to litigate against something larger like Twitter.

You just said it would be easy to prove bans based on political content. Now you're insisting it would be hard, costly and not worth litigating?

There is no FCC court for Twitter or USMB. The FCC simply doesn't get involved in individual bans.

Size increases impact, which changes the need.
And it has happened in the past.
Companies like Twitter, and even USMB, can not legally discriminate based on political beliefs.

Political beliefs are not a protected class under US federal laws. So there's no federal discrimination laws that come into play.

And Trump was banned for violating Twitters TOS. There no law preventing Twitter from doing that.

 

[Rigby5]

Its pretty clear you have no idea what a dictatorship is.

Or, I'm citing the dictionary on what a dictatorship is. And you're citing yourself.

Dictatorship is governance by a dictator. A dictator is a leader exercising absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Nothing we've discussed today even remotely resembles that.

Your argument is disintegrating into incoherence.

And again, the FCC normally does not have to over turn Twitter bans because normally Twitter does not ban based on political content. This likely is the very FIRST time that violation has ever occurred.

Who said that Twitter banned based on political content? Twitter banned Trump for TOS violations.

You're still stuck at square one......as your 'evidence' is merely your personal opinion. Which has no legal authority with the FCC, Twitter, or any one else.

Is this it? Just you citing your personal opinion as the law?

Wrong.
Your assumption is that a dictator is against the will of the people, and that is totally false.
It does not alter the fact a dictator is forcing his will on people when he does it by sneaky means that use control over the media frighten people into thinking the dictator is doing good and protecting them, when in reality he is lying to them and harming them, for his own goals only.
This is always true with every dictator.
Fear is a terrible means of ruling a dictatorship.
A dictatorship is much more effective when you create a false threat and come off like a savior instead.
There hardly ever has been a dictator who did not use media manipulation to come off like a protector instead of the abuser he really is.
What do you think nationalism and propaganda are for?
You can't get a powerful army to fight for you out of fear.
It can only be out of true loyalty, based on false information.
A dictator is not someone who prevents the will of the people, but one who manipulates and gains control of the will of the people.

That is why I keep bringing up example of how the US already IS a dictatorship, such as invading Iraq on false WMD claims.
That can ONLY happen in a dictatorship.
Your foolish notion that we are not a dictatorship because we wanted to murder Iraqis, not withstanding.

 

[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]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.

shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canada

My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

I said it yesterday skank,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Unreal: Pompeo makes STUNNING reveal of overnight TECH PURGE changes on Twitter

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo highlighted an absolutely stunning and REVEALING look at the changes to Twitter overnight as the purge continues. You may or may not know that Twitter actually tried …

therightscoop.com

 

[Skylar]

Its pretty clear you have no idea what a dictatorship is.

Or, I'm citing the dictionary on what a dictatorship is. And you're citing yourself.

Dictatorship is governance by a dictator. A dictator is a leader exercising absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

Nothing we've discussed today even remotely resembles that.

Your argument is disintegrating into incoherence.

And again, the FCC normally does not have to over turn Twitter bans because normally Twitter does not ban based on political content. This likely is the very FIRST time that violation has ever occurred.

Who said that Twitter banned based on political content? Twitter banned Trump for TOS violations.

You're still stuck at square one......as your 'evidence' is merely your personal opinion. Which has no legal authority with the FCC, Twitter, or any one else.

Is this it? Just you citing your personal opinion as the law?

Wrong.
Your assumption is that a dictator is against the will of the people, and that is totally false
It does not alter the fact a dictator is forcing his will on people when he does it by sneaky means that use control over the media frighten people into thinking the dictator is doing good and protecting them, when in reality he is lying to them and harming them, for his own goals only.

I haven't said a thing about the 'will of the people'.

You're devolving into incoherence again.

And nothing we've discussed today has a thing to do with a dictatorship. A twitter ban is not a form of government. A dictatorship is. Nor does Trump being banned from Twitter for violating their TOS mean that we're suddenly a 'dictatorship'.

Your argument is almost incomprehensible at this point.

 

[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]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.

shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canada

My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

I said it yesterday skank,,,

Someone is triggered.

 

[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]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.

shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canada

My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

I said it yesterday skank,,,

Someone is triggered.

who???

 

[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]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.

shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canada

My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

I said it yesterday skank,,,

Someone is triggered.

who???

The poor, triggered soul screaming 'whore' and 'skank'.

 

[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]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.

shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canada

My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

I said it yesterday skank,,,

Someone is triggered.

who???

The poor, triggered soul screaming 'whore' and 'skank'.

when??

 

[Rigby5]

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.
Twitter is only obligated to it's board of directors and shareholders (less so)

But the real problem is MUCH deeper.

The left also owns the entire Internet....all the cellular Networks....and all the Media.

That's in question. I thought there was a precedent set back in the 1880's, about that sort of
shit.

When we discuss "public utilities" they are under Federal Guidelines and have to answer
to the Federal and/or State government...but they are all privately owned companies.

All these places like facebook...twiiter, whatever...are means of communicating with
each other. USMB, might just be considered a opinion outlet. Twitter is the modern day
phone...telegraph. I don't care who owns the phone company they cannot listen into
my phone calls without legal permission.

This could be the perfect case for SCOTUS to finally reel in these idiots.

USMB fits the definition of an 'interactive computer service' to a T.

Anything you do to Twitter, you do to this board.

The fact it is hard, costly, and not worth it to litigate against a small board like USMB, does not mean it may not be worth it to litigate against something larger like Twitter.

You just said it would be easy to prove bans based on political content. Now you're insisting it would be hard, costly and not worth litigating?

There is no FCC court for Twitter or USMB. The FCC simply doesn't get involved in individual bans.

Size increases impact, which changes the need.
And it has happened in the past.
Companies like Twitter, and even USMB, can not legally discriminate based on political beliefs.

Political beliefs are not a protected class under US federal laws. So there's no federal discrimination laws that come into play.

And Trump was banned for violating Twitters TOS. There no law preventing Twitter from doing that.

Wrong.
I said it would be easy to prove, but not easy for an average person to go through all the long involved steps, because there usually is nothing to gain by it. If you get kicked off one board, what harm could you prove if you can just go on another board or even just make a new login under a different name?
And normally boards do NOT ban people too much. In fact their main problem is they are usually too tolerant and let people get away with all sorts of lies, slander, libel, etc. Just like they let people get away with things like copyright violations. What money damages could you claim?

And you are still mixing up terms. The FCC has regulations, so then has a review board for people to defend themselves when they are cut off for violating FCC regulations. But if the review board does not go the way an entity like Twitter that is cut off for an illegal act likes, then they have to try in court. And I think Twitter would lose.

And STOP referring to "protected classes". That has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.
The current protected classes are groups who in the past were discriminated against so clearly that they were able to force legislation to prevent future discrimination against them. That has nothing to do with actions that are also protected rights. That only has to do with groups who were discriminated against by who they were, not by what they wanted to do. Nor are protected classes static, and as more people sue and litigate, more groups and actions will be added to those protected classes. They are not written in stone. They just represent those who had the worst of it in the past, and succeeded in ameliorating. There are lots of other things that are protected rights, like privacy, which are NOT classes.

And YES, most certainly the FCC does get involved in banning companies like Twitter if a pattern of deliberate abuse of rights, such as political expression, are proven. The FCC is legally bound to prevent violations of political freedom of expression, and therefore has to ban Twitter from internet access if it can be proven Twitter was violating political rights systematically.
Twitter only has access to the internet as long as it does not violate its terms of service agreement with the FCC.

 

[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]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.

shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canada

My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

I said it yesterday skank,,,

Someone is triggered.

who???

The poor, triggered soul screaming 'whore' and 'skank'.

what are you trying to say??

 

[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.
Twitter is only obligated to it's board of directors and shareholders (less so)

But the real problem is MUCH deeper.

The left also owns the entire Internet....all the cellular Networks....and all the Media.

That's in question. I thought there was a precedent set back in the 1880's, about that sort of
shit.

When we discuss "public utilities" they are under Federal Guidelines and have to answer
to the Federal and/or State government...but they are all privately owned companies.

All these places like facebook...twiiter, whatever...are means of communicating with
each other. USMB, might just be considered a opinion outlet. Twitter is the modern day
phone...telegraph. I don't care who owns the phone company they cannot listen into
my phone calls without legal permission.

This could be the perfect case for SCOTUS to finally reel in these idiots.

USMB fits the definition of an 'interactive computer service' to a T.

Anything you do to Twitter, you do to this board.

The fact it is hard, costly, and not worth it to litigate against a small board like USMB, does not mean it may not be worth it to litigate against something larger like Twitter.

You just said it would be easy to prove bans based on political content. Now you're insisting it would be hard, costly and not worth litigating?

There is no FCC court for Twitter or USMB. The FCC simply doesn't get involved in individual bans.

Size increases impact, which changes the need.
And it has happened in the past.
Companies like Twitter, and even USMB, can not legally discriminate based on political beliefs.

Political beliefs are not a protected class under US federal laws. So there's no federal discrimination laws that come into play.

And Trump was banned for violating Twitters TOS. There no law preventing Twitter from doing that.

Wrong.
I said it would be easy to prove, but not easy for an average person to go through all the long involved steps, because there usually is nothing to gain by it.

Obvious nonsense. It woudn't be easy to prove....as your 'evidence' is your personal opinion. And your personal opinion doesn't prove anything. Not here and certainly not in a court of law.

The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter is the TOS. Twitter determined that Trump violated that TOS and banned him. And Twitter is the arbiter of when that TOS is violated by those very terms of service.

Your personal opinion simply plays no role in any of it.

And STOP referring to "protected classes". That has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

If you're talking about discrimination under federal law, protected classses is immediately relevant. As if you're outside of a protected class, you're not protected by federal anti-discrimination laws.

Its why LGBT folks can be discriminated against in many states as they aren't a protected class.

Nor is 'political belief' a protected class. Making federal anti-discrimination laws inapplicable.

 

[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]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.

shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canada

My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

I said it yesterday skank,,,

Someone is triggered.

who???

The poor, triggered soul screaming 'whore' and 'skank'.

what are you trying to say??

That you've clearly been triggered.....as demonstrated by you screaming 'whore' and 'skank' in your replies.

Do you need a safe space?

 

[dblack]

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.

Wrong.
As a monopoly on a public utility, Twitter does not get to be its own arbiter no matter what a coercive contract may say.
In fact, I have never heard of any contract where a private company gets to arbitrariy decide, as ever being remotely legal?
That is totally and inherently in violation of the law.
But even more so in thise case since for Twitter to be allowed to use the internet, Twitter had to sign a contract that is would never illegally censor based on political discrimination.
The FCC regulations have the force of law, Twitter has nothing.

Those sure are a bunch of statist excuses.

 

[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]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

If conservatives didn't lie, threaten and promote authoritarian platforms, they wouldn't have a problem.

shut up you scabbed up useless whore from canada

My, my, some ignorant asshole is certainly triggered today. Hunting ain't no fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

I said it yesterday skank,,,

Someone is triggered.

who???

The poor, triggered soul screaming 'whore' and 'skank'.

what are you trying to say??

That you've clearly been triggered.....as demonstrated by you screaming 'whore' and 'skank' in your replies.

Do you need a safe space?

when did I scream???

are you sure youre responding to the right comments??

 

[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.

Wrong.
As a monopoly on a public utility, Twitter does not get to be its own arbiter no matter what a coercive contract may say.
In fact, I have never heard of any contract where a private company gets to arbitrariy decide, as ever being remotely legal?
That is totally and inherently in violation of the law.
But even more so in thise case since for Twitter to be allowed to use the internet, Twitter had to sign a contract that is would never illegally censor based on political discrimination.
The FCC regulations have the force of law, Twitter has nothing.

Those sure are a bunch of statist excuses.

OMG!!! are they??

how so??

 

[dblack]

Companies like Twitter, and even USMB, can not legally discriminate based on political beliefs.

Sure they can. All those laws are bullshit anyway, but political belief is not a protected class.

 

[dblack]

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.

Wrong.
As a monopoly on a public utility, Twitter does not get to be its own arbiter no matter what a coercive contract may say.
In fact, I have never heard of any contract where a private company gets to arbitrariy decide, as ever being remotely legal?
That is totally and inherently in violation of the law.
But even more so in thise case since for Twitter to be allowed to use the internet, Twitter had to sign a contract that is would never illegally censor based on political discrimination.
The FCC regulations have the force of law, Twitter has nothing.

Those sure are a bunch of statist excuses.

OMG!!! are they??

how so??

It's the same set of rationalizations always used to justify state takeovers. Except usually it's progressives and socialists slinging it.

 

[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.

Wrong.
As a monopoly on a public utility, Twitter does not get to be its own arbiter no matter what a coercive contract may say.
In fact, I have never heard of any contract where a private company gets to arbitrariy decide, as ever being remotely legal?
That is totally and inherently in violation of the law.
But even more so in thise case since for Twitter to be allowed to use the internet, Twitter had to sign a contract that is would never illegally censor based on political discrimination.
The FCC regulations have the force of law, Twitter has nothing.

Those sure are a bunch of statist excuses.

OMG!!! are they??

how so??

It's the same set of rationalizations always used to justify state takeovers. Except usually it's progressives and socialists slinging it.

republicans are progressives,, well for the most part,,

 

[Rigby5]

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.
Twitter is only obligated to it's board of directors and shareholders (less so)

But the real problem is MUCH deeper.

The left also owns the entire Internet....all the cellular Networks....and all the Media.

That's in question. I thought there was a precedent set back in the 1880's, about that sort of
shit.

When we discuss "public utilities" they are under Federal Guidelines and have to answer
to the Federal and/or State government...but they are all privately owned companies.

All these places like facebook...twiiter, whatever...are means of communicating with
each other. USMB, might just be considered a opinion outlet. Twitter is the modern day
phone...telegraph. I don't care who owns the phone company they cannot listen into
my phone calls without legal permission.

This could be the perfect case for SCOTUS to finally reel in these idiots.

USMB fits the definition of an 'interactive computer service' to a T.

Anything you do to Twitter, you do to this board.

The fact it is hard, costly, and not worth it to litigate against a small board like USMB, does not mean it may not be worth it to litigate against something larger like Twitter.

You just said it would be easy to prove bans based on political content. Now you're insisting it would be hard, costly and not worth litigating?

There is no FCC court for Twitter or USMB. The FCC simply doesn't get involved in individual bans.

Size increases impact, which changes the need.
And it has happened in the past.
Companies like Twitter, and even USMB, can not legally discriminate based on political beliefs.

Political beliefs are not a protected class under US federal laws. So there's no federal discrimination laws that come into play.

And Trump was banned for violating Twitters TOS. There no law preventing Twitter from doing that.

Wrong.
I said it would be easy to prove, but not easy for an average person to go through all the long involved steps, because there usually is nothing to gain by it.

Obvious nonsense. It woudn't be easy to prove....as your 'evidence' is your personal opinion. And your personal opinion doesn't prove anything. Not here and certainly not in a court of law.

The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter is the TOS. Twitter determined that Trump violated that TOS and banned him. And Twitter is the arbiter of when that TOS is violated by those very terms of service.

Your personal opinion simply plays no role in any of it.

You clearly are NOT following.
The facts are easily proven.
Trump is calling for political action on Twitter, so then is protected speech.
That does not and CAN not at all violate any contract with Twitter, and in fact would be illegal for Twitter to attempt to write a contract that contained political discrimination.
My "opinion" has absolutely nothing at all to do with anything.

And Twitter is NOT and CAN NOT be arbiter of ANYTHING.
That would require Twitter to be a dictatorship.
As a nation of laws, Twitter is bound by the constitution, which prohibits political discrimination on a government regulated service like the Internet.

You seem to have this totally backwards.
The question is not whether or not Twitter can terminate Trumps service. Of course they can.
But the POINT is that then the FCC can and must terminate Twitter's access to the Internet, since Twitter would then be violating federal law.

The 2 steps involved are the FCC review boards, and then the federal courts.
You seem totally unaware of how this procedure is enacted.
I assume you I have done this hundreds of times and can tell you that Twitter is in a great deal of trouble.
What they did was unprecedented.
The only way Twitter is not in trouble, is if the FCC already has been stepped on and corrupted.
But I have never seen that before.