Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[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.

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,,

So you're hunting republicans?

 

[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,,

So you're hunting republicans?

where did you come up with that??

 

[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,,,/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,,

Not in the general context.
Progressives are the ones who consider the federal and state Constitutions and statutes to be too weak of lacking when it comes to protecting individual rights.
Progressives want more specific protective legislation.
Republicans instead tend to be conservatives who want to keep minimal constitutions and as little regulation as possible.
The only cross over are right wing libertarians and left wing anarchist are so far to the extreme, that they wrap around and coincide. The extreme right and extreme left are not really distinguishable.

 

[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.

You clearly are NOT following.
The facts are easily proven.

Oh, I'm following. Your personal opinions are not facts. And your 'evidence' that Trump was banned for political content is your personal opinion.

Which isn't evidence in any court of law. The binding agreement between Trump and Twitter is the Twitter TOS. When Twitter determined that Trump violated those terms of service, they banned him. As they have every power to do.

As demonstrated elegantly by Trump's inability to post on Twitter anymore.

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.

Political beliefs is not a protected class. Federal anti-discrimination laws doesn't protect it.

Making your claims, again, moot. In addition to being nothing but your personal opinion.

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.

There's no such obligation, no such legal mandate. There's no such thing as an FCC court for Twitter bans. Nor has the FCC ever 'shut off the internet' to a website for banning anyone.

You've made all that up.

Is that it? Just you pretending that the FCC must do whatever you make up?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

They've been after Trump since November 2016

get a life

 

[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,,

Not in the general context.
Progressives are the ones who consider the federal and state Constitutions and statutes to be too weak of lacking when it comes to protecting individual rights.
Progressives want more specific protective legislation.
Republicans instead tend to be conservatives who want to keep minimal constitutions and as little regulation as possible.
The only cross over are right wing libertarians and left wing anarchist are so far to the extreme, that they wrap around and coincide. The extreme right and extreme left are not really distinguishable.

their record says different,,

and the extreme right is anarchy not anything related to the republican party,,,they are full on left wing authoritarian,, just not as far left as democrats,,

 

[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.

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,,

So you're hunting republicans?

where did you come up with that??

Your handle?

 

[HaShev]

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?

There's a cap aka maximum amount allowed that is violated. Also there are various methods around this some campaigns try and press their luck on, sometimes being charged for circumventing campaign finance laws and missapropriating funds.

 

[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?

There's a cap aka maximum amount allowed that is violated. Also there various methods around this some campaigns try and press their luck on, sometimes being charged for circumventing campaign finance laws.

So donating to campaigns is not illegal. Its just the amount you're talking about. Kinda takes the wind out of your 'bribe' claims.

What's your evidence that these companies have gone over what they're legally allowed to contribute?

And you'd think that if going over the limits for donations was that serious.......Trump woudln't have pardoned Dinesh D'Souza for exactly that crime.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

You have less than nothing.

Twitter isn’t a “public utility” or anything close to it. Nor is it regulated by the FCC as to content.

 

[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.

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.

You have less than nothing.

Twitter isn’t a “public utility” or anything close to it. Nor is it regulated by the FCC as to content.

Yeah, Rigby is just making up all sorts of pseudo-legal 'requirements' based on his personal opinion. That require no one to do anything.

There is no FCC court for Twitter bans. No, the FCC doesn't 'cut the internet' to websites for banning someone. Yes, Twitter gets to arbitrate their own TOS.

 

[jc456]

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.

Exactly. Proves how weak demofks really are. Losers

no balls, no intestinal fortitude

 

[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.

Exactly. Proves how weak demofks really are. Losers

no balls, no intestinal fortitude

Trump can call a press conference at any time of the day or night and he'll get international coverage.

He just doesn't want to.....as he'd be asked questions.

 

[HaShev]

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?

There's a cap aka maximum amount allowed that is violated. Also there various methods around this some campaigns try and press their luck on, sometimes being charged for circumventing campaign finance laws.

So donating to campaigns is not illegal. Its just the amount you're talking about. Kinda takes the wind out of your 'bribe' claims.

What's your evidence that these companies have gone over what they're legally allowed to contribute?

And you'd think that if going over the limits for donations was that serious.......Trump woudln't have pardoned Dinesh D'Souza for exactly that crime.

EACH INSTANCE HAS IT'S OWN UNIQUE CONTEXT like intent, knowledge, purposeful act, accidental act etc.
Some people are pardoned when advisors decide time was served and the person was being punished further, not for the crime and it's scenerio, but for political motives like revenge, threat, diversion, patsy, etc.
In other words if it was a favor, time served would be shorter with a quicker instant pardon, not one done after the crime was served for a determined normal fair time.
To answer your question, re-read what I said.

 

[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?

There's a cap aka maximum amount allowed that is violated. Also there various methods around this some campaigns try and press their luck on, sometimes being charged for circumventing campaign finance laws.

So donating to campaigns is not illegal. Its just the amount you're talking about. Kinda takes the wind out of your 'bribe' claims.

What's your evidence that these companies have gone over what they're legally allowed to contribute?

And you'd think that if going over the limits for donations was that serious.......Trump woudln't have pardoned Dinesh D'Souza for exactly that crime.

EACH INSTANCE HAS IT'S OWN UNIQUE CONTEXT like intent, knowledge, purposeful act, accidental act etc.

So those laws don't apply to D'Souza. But do apply to say, Twitter.

Despite the fact that there was extensive evidence that D'Souza committed the very crime you're referring to. While you've yet to show us any evidence that Twitter violated them at all.

Are the crimes 'serious' or are they not? And what's your evidence that Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or any of the others violated them?

You've essentially abandoned all your claims about bribes and obstructing laws. You're down to campaign finance violations.....for which you have presented zero evidence. Here's your claim:

"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."

Which candidate, what promotion, what donation limit?

 

[HaShev]

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?

There's a cap aka maximum amount allowed that is violated. Also there various methods around this some campaigns try and press their luck on, sometimes being charged for circumventing campaign finance laws.

So donating to campaigns is not illegal. Its just the amount you're talking about. Kinda takes the wind out of your 'bribe' claims.

What's your evidence that these companies have gone over what they're legally allowed to contribute?

And you'd think that if going over the limits for donations was that serious.......Trump woudln't have pardoned Dinesh D'Souza for exactly that crime.

EACH INSTANCE HAS IT'S OWN UNIQUE CONTEXT like intent, knowledge, purposeful act, accidental act etc.

So those laws don't apply to D'Souza. But do apply to say, Twitter.

Despite the fact that there was extensive evidence that D'Souza committed the very crime you're referring to. While you've yet to show us any evidence that Twitter violated them at all.

Are the crimes 'serious' or are they not? And what's your evidence that Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or any of the others violated them?

You just said Twitter is as responsible as D'Souza.
If Biden disagrees he can pardon twitter execs then take the same heat for pardons as Trump, hence advisors to advise what is proper and what is seen as abusing the power of pardon like Obama did.

 

[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?

There's a cap aka maximum amount allowed that is violated. Also there various methods around this some campaigns try and press their luck on, sometimes being charged for circumventing campaign finance laws.

So donating to campaigns is not illegal. Its just the amount you're talking about. Kinda takes the wind out of your 'bribe' claims.

What's your evidence that these companies have gone over what they're legally allowed to contribute?

And you'd think that if going over the limits for donations was that serious.......Trump woudln't have pardoned Dinesh D'Souza for exactly that crime.

EACH INSTANCE HAS IT'S OWN UNIQUE CONTEXT like intent, knowledge, purposeful act, accidental act etc.

So those laws don't apply to D'Souza. But do apply to say, Twitter.

Despite the fact that there was extensive evidence that D'Souza committed the very crime you're referring to. While you've yet to show us any evidence that Twitter violated them at all.

Are the crimes 'serious' or are they not? And what's your evidence that Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or any of the others violated them?

You just said Twitter is as responsible as D'Souza.

Nope. I was pointing out the inconsistency in your argument. Either the law would apply to both or neither. Instead, D'Soaza commited the crimes you're talking about.....and was given a pass. Despite the evidence of his crimes, his trial, his conviction.

While you have no evidence that Twitter or Facebook commited the same crime. And have abandoned your claims about 'obstructing laws' and 'bribery'.

If Biden disagrees he can pardon twitter execs then take the same heat for pardons as Trump, hence advisors to advise what is proper and what is seen as abusing the power of pardon like Obama did.

Pardon Twitter for what? They've been convicted of nothing. They haven't even been charged.

Remember......you're making an allegation against Twitter that you can't backed up.

 

[basquebromance]

we have reached what i call "peak bullshit" with the deletion of Trump's twitter

we are at the beginning of something historic, my friends, a new era of telling the truth

it's a TIME FOR TRUTH, folks!

 

[Faun]

“Democrats often say that we don’t remove enough content, and Republicans often say we remove too much,” Zuckerberg said in his opening remarks. “The fact that both sides criticize us doesn’t mean that we’re getting this right, but it does mean there are real disagreements about where the limits of online speech should be.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/28/twitter-facebook-google-senate-hearing-live-updates/

Something is broke and needs to get fixed. These media giants are wielding way too much power, and proved it with all the
right wing censoring prior to the election. Their is a fix, but it takes a government that isn't corrupt.
I don't think our government will fix it.

You have a fight between the truthers, and the propagandists. One side wants lies removed from the platforms, the other wants to be able to spread lies without being challenged.

One side wants "alternative facts" while the other wants only real facts. That's because the different ideologies requite different information to influence the electorate.

Wow! Spoken like a true leftwinger.
What I hear is you saying that everything from the right is "alternative facts" and the lies from the left are the "real facts".
See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech, and YOU and your ilk don't get to decide.
Nor do I and my ilk decide. Do you not see the direction our country is going with it? It's concerning, or should be concerning to all.

"See, here is the issue, dude...It's called freedom of speech"

It is? You're a mod here, maybe you can answer... why am I not free to call other posters here a pedophile? Isn't banning my access to post here for doing that harnessing my freedom of speech?

 

[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,,

So you're hunting republicans?

where did you come up with that??

Your handle?

thats not what it says,,