Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[theHawk]

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?

It is political what Twatter is doing because they allow leftwing people and accounts call for violence all the time. Plus the President never called for violence. 100% political and you know it.

 

[DJT for Life]

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?

It is political what Twatter is doing because they allow leftwing people and accounts call for violence all the time. Plus the President never called for violence. 100% political and you know it.

They also allow Iran to chant Death to the USA, all the time.

 

[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.

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?

Wrong again.
My "personal opinion" has nothing to do with it.
When I state my personal opinion, I say so, admitting when something is not based on fact.
But clearly the banning of Trump IS and HAS to be illegal political censorship.
First of all, Trump no where called for the occupation of Congress, and the occupation of Congress harms no one so is not illegal. Only violations of the rights of others can be illegal.

There is no such thing as a "binding agreement".
Contracts one is forces to sign in order to gain access to a monopoly are often illegal.
And the laws that determine what Twitter can a user can do are determined by the FCC, not Twitter.

You keep saying that political speech and beliefs is not a "protected class", and that is just stupid.
Political speech and beliefs of course are not a class but an action, and classes has nothing at all to do with the discussion or censorship. Political speech and beliefs are the single most protected actions in the entire world. The founders even allowed presidents to be hung in effigy due tot the sanctity of protected speech and beliefs. If you think that only the established protected classes are all that is protected, you know nothing at all of law, history, politics, logic, theory, or even human nature.

And please stop spewing word salads. There clearly is an FCC review board, and there are courts where civil litigation between people like Twitter and Trump work out contentions. There is no such thing as an "FCC court", and no one has mentioned such a non-entity but you. You clearly are not following and know nothing of the regulations and law involved.
For Twitter to continue to be allowed to use the Internet, they can not discriminate politically. Twitter would have to prove Trump violated reasonable TOS agreements, and they can't. Trump violated nothing. Twitter clearly then censored based on arbitrary political beliefs, which is totally and completely illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

...
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,,

Not sure how you are defining left and right wing then.
Because the left wing typically is considered a populist movement of the poor masses, while right wing typically is considered more of a tyranny of the wealthy elite.

One of my points before was that right wing Libertarians wrap around and coincide with the extreme left wing wrap around of Anarchists. But that is not using the word Anarchism is the common derogatory sense of "no law or order", but in the ideal sense where Anarchism is the political believe that if you have a fair society, then no coercive threats by government are needed. They tend to believe that if you don't have any corruption, then you won't have any crime. Their belief is that all crime is cause by a reaction to injustice and government corruption. I tend to agree with them on that.
Anarchism believes in law and order, but that the only true law and order can come from each individual policing themselves. They believe that as soon as you centralize a coercive law and order, it really is just corrupt and criminal. I also tend to agree with that.

As for republicans and democrats, that keeps changing.
They are opportunists who twist with the political winds.

 

[progressive hunter]

...
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,,

Not sure how you are defining left and right wing then.
Because the left wing typically is considered a populist movement of the poor masses, while right wing typically is considered more of a tyranny of the wealthy elite.

One of my points before was that right wing Libertarians wrap around and coincide with the extreme left wing wrap around of Anarchists. But that is not using the word Anarchism is the common derogatory sense of "no law or order", but in the ideal sense where Anarchism is the political believe that if you have a fair society, then no coercive threats by government are needed. They tend to believe that if you don't have any corruption, then you won't have any crime. Their belief is that all crime is cause by a reaction to injustice and government corruption. I tend to agree with them on that.
Anarchism believes in law and order, but that the only true law and order can come from each individual policing themselves. They believe that as soon as you centralize a coercive law and order, it really is just corrupt and criminal. I also tend to agree with that.

As for republicans and democrats, that keeps changing.
They are opportunists who twist with the political winds.

left is anyone that calls for more power than allowed by the constitution and right is anyone calling for less,,

thats how the founders developed it,,,

and its pretty clear the repubes are leftwing,, just not as far left as dems,,

 

[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.

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.

The internet most certainly is a public utility that the FCC heavily regulates, and Twitter can not violate FCC regulations by discriminating according to political beliefs.
Twitter is supposed to lose its internet access when it discriminates according to political beliefs.
The ONLY legal way Twitter can ban someone like Trump is if Trump were to deliberately attempt to infringe upon the rights of someone else, such as inciting violence against a person, slander/libel, etc.
No such action by Trump can be shown or proven.
So then Twitter violated its contract with the FCC, and needs to be banned.
The ability of Twitter to use the Internet comes from whether Twitter aides or impedes the rights of people like Trump.
And most certainly the FCC is who establishes all broadcast content regulations, whether it is swear words on TV or slander in private emails or Tweets.
Twitter's only defense would be if they could claim they were trying to enforce FCC regulations, which I do not think they were since Trump was not calling for violence against individuals.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Free republic.com banned me once. Fascists!

why??

Because I said Republicans are fascists.

Spits one of the biggest fascists on the forum

 

[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.

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.

That is silly.
I negotiated internet access all the time because I regularly implemented network protocols for companies, schools, governments, etc.
I know exactly what the laws and regulations said when I was doing it, (and they likely have no changed).

You can't even keep it straight what the difference is between a review board and a court.

And yes, the FCC frequently cuts internet access for any violaters, like it appears Twitter is.
The internet came out of DARPA and was later extended to colleges and schools, so it is very open, fragile, and easily corrupted. So companies that do not comply, like Twitter, are frequently cut off.
Happens all the time because if notified and they do not cut off the offender, then the FCC would become libel in civil court for damages.

Companies like Twitter can establish more restrictive contracts than the FCC requires, but NOT based on things that would violate individual rights, like political beliefs. That is totally and completely illegal, by anyone, at any time, on a government resource like the internet.
Only a complete fascist narcissist would not get that.
If is not only obvious, but absolutely indispensable to any attempt at a democratic republic.
Political censorship would NEVER be accepted by anyone who wants or believes in a democratic republic.
Political censorship is inherently criminal in a democratic republic because it destroys any democratic republic it infests.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Twitter committed the greatest crime of all in a democratic republic, which is discrimination based on political beliefs.
The fact the founders felt that individual political expression was so important that it has to be number one of the restrictions against federal abuse, shows who no one can be allowed to violate those basic individual freedoms. For clearly a democratic republic can not stand is any discrimination against political beliefs are allowed.

For example, if you allowed political discrimination, then telephone companies, newspapers, food chains, banks, etc., would be able to deny business over your political affiliation. Then political parties would have to remain clandestine, and you would no longer have a democratic republic.
This is very simple civics 101, should be obvious to any child.
Political discrimination is and always has been illegal in the US.
Those who do not agree, need to leave and go make their own dictatorship someplace else.

 

[Rigby5]

“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?

Banning your access here would be an illegal violation of your free speech unless you caused it to be warranted by first harming the rights of someone else, whom this board is legally obligated to protect.
So when one person calls another a pedophile, that harms them and requires you to be be banned unless you can prove what you said had a solid basis for your belief.

Its a balance between rights, and if you had no basis for the deliberately harmful slander, then you would have been in violation of the law and the board required to ban you, in order to protect others.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Twitter obviously harmed the political rights of Trump, and in violation of regulations and laws, unless they can prove it was necessary in order to prevent Trump from harming the rights of others.
So who did Trump harm and how?
It is incumbent upon Twitter to prove they were forced to act in the ban.
If they did it based on their own arbitrary political likes and dislikes, then they violated laws and regulations.

 

[Nostra]

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

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

The problem the Right has now is that through long term complacency, the Left fully controls not only the Social media,
but also all the cellular networks, the Internet networks AND even the Network backbones that fundamentally
make up the Internet.

In other words.....the Right has absolutely ZERO means of communications that it doesn't totally depend on the Left to allow them to have.
If and when the Left desires, it can globally silence the Right with the flip of a few switches and closed accounts.

Ironically, China is slowly manuevering the World to be dependent on it similarly.

So a restaurant chain could refuse service to someone because they don’t like something they said?

 

[Rigby5]

...
left is anyone that calls for more power than allowed by the constitution and right is anyone calling for less,,

thats how the founders developed it,,,

and its pretty clear the repubes are leftwing,, just not as far left as dems,,

Its a little more complicated than that.
Both parties agree that some constant growth of government is necessary, as populations and technology grow.
For example, we no longer have a frontier that allows for people to forage for food, so we have to have things like unemployment insurance, social security, etc.
And now we have thing like TV, radio, internet, airplanes, etc., so we need things like FCC and FAA.

The argument is really more narrowly focused on regulation of business.
The industrial revolution gave the wealthy elite a monopoly on jobs because factories ended cottage industries.
The right does not want business regulations, the left does, like child labor laws, minimum wage, etc.

But you are correct both sides want to abuse government.
Such as illegal wars to increase profits. But that is not according to an ideal, but is just opportunistic.

 

[progressive hunter]

...
left is anyone that calls for more power than allowed by the constitution and right is anyone calling for less,,

thats how the founders developed it,,,

and its pretty clear the repubes are leftwing,, just not as far left as dems,,

Its a little more complicated than that.
Both parties agree that some constant growth of government is necessary, as populations and technology grow.
For example, we no longer have a frontier that allows for people to forage for food, so we have to have things like unemployment insurance, social security, etc.
And now we have thing like TV, radio, internet, airplanes, etc., so we need things like FCC and FAA.

The argument is really more narrowly focused on regulation of business.
The industrial revolution gave the wealthy elite a monopoly on jobs because factories ended cottage industries.
The right does not want business regulations, the left does, like child labor laws, minimum wage, etc.

But you are correct both sides want to abuse government.
Such as illegal wars to increase profits. But that is not according to an ideal, but is just opportunistic.

it would have been easier to just say I was right and both parties are leftwing and no longer support the constitution,,,

and we know what that makes them dont we??

 

[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.

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.

That is silly.
I negotiated internet access all the time because I regularly implemented network protocols for companies, schools, governments, etc.
I know exactly what the laws and regulations said when I was doing it, (and they likely have no changed).

You can't even keep it straight what the difference is between a review board and a court.

And yes, the FCC frequently cuts internet access for any violaters, like it appears Twitter is.
The internet came out of DARPA and was later extended to colleges and schools, so it is very open, fragile, and easily corrupted. So companies that do not comply, like Twitter, are frequently cut off.
Happens all the time because if notified and they do not cut off the offender, then the FCC would become libel in civil court for damages.

Companies like Twitter can establish more restrictive contracts than the FCC requires, but NOT based on things that would violate individual rights, like political beliefs. That is totally and completely illegal, by anyone, at any time, on a government resource like the internet.
Only a complete fascist narcissist would not get that.
If is not only obvious, but absolutely indispensable to any attempt at a democratic republic.
Political censorship would NEVER be accepted by anyone who wants or believes in a democratic republic.
Political censorship is inherently criminal in a democratic republic because it destroys any democratic republic it infests.

I'm an expert on the internet and I know what I'm talking about!!! Is that the lie you want to go with?

Because there are actual legal professionals on this site who have worked in internet and communications law, and as one, of them, I'm here to tell you you're full of shit. The FCC does nothing to control content on privately owned platforms.

Parler is done. Nobody will sell their App and nobody will host it. The days of extremists and those who use the internet to radicalize their armies, will soon be a thing of the past. An open and free expression of ideas doesn't include lies intended to undermine governments and raise revolutionary armies to install dictators. Not gonna happen.

 

[Nostra]

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.

That is silly.
I negotiated internet access all the time because I regularly implemented network protocols for companies, schools, governments, etc.
I know exactly what the laws and regulations said when I was doing it, (and they likely have no changed).

You can't even keep it straight what the difference is between a review board and a court.

And yes, the FCC frequently cuts internet access for any violaters, like it appears Twitter is.
The internet came out of DARPA and was later extended to colleges and schools, so it is very open, fragile, and easily corrupted. So companies that do not comply, like Twitter, are frequently cut off.
Happens all the time because if notified and they do not cut off the offender, then the FCC would become libel in civil court for damages.

Companies like Twitter can establish more restrictive contracts than the FCC requires, but NOT based on things that would violate individual rights, like political beliefs. That is totally and completely illegal, by anyone, at any time, on a government resource like the internet.
Only a complete fascist narcissist would not get that.
If is not only obvious, but absolutely indispensable to any attempt at a democratic republic.
Political censorship would NEVER be accepted by anyone who wants or believes in a democratic republic.
Political censorship is inherently criminal in a democratic republic because it destroys any democratic republic it infests.

I'm an expert on the internet and I know what I'm talking about!!! Is that the lie you want to go with?

Because there are actual legal professionals on this site who have worked in internet and communications law, and as one, of them, I'm here to tell you you're full of shit. The FCC does nothing to control content on privately owned platforms.

Parler is done. Nobody will sell their App and nobody will host it. The days of extremists and those who use the internet to radicalize their armies, will soon be a thing of the past. An open and free expression of ideas doesn't include lies intended to undermine governments and raise revolutionary armies to install dictators. Not gonna happen.

You are quite the Fascist.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

www.usatoday.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter should and likely would lose.

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

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

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

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

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

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

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

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.

Idiotic. Of course Twitter is a private company. Companies like Twitter are not public just because they're on the Internet. That's like saying McDonald's is a public company because they're on public roads.

 

[Nostra]

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

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

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

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

www.usatoday.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter should and likely would lose.

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

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

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

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

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

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

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

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.

Idiotic. Of course Twitter is a private company. Companies like Twitter are not public just because they're on the Internet. That's like saying McDonald's is a public company because they're on public roads.

So McDonalds can refuse to serve anyone who has a different political opinion than they do? They are “private”, using your definition.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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

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

www.usatoday.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter should and likely would lose.

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

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

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

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

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

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

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

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.

Idiotic. Of course Twitter is a private company. Companies like Twitter are not public just because they're on the Internet. That's like saying McDonald's is a public company because they're on public roads.

So McDonalds can refuse to serve anyone who has a different political opinion than they do? They are “private”, using your definition.

No, but then you're an idiot if you think Impeached Trump was banned from Twitter over his political opinion and not for violating their terms of service and inciting violence.

not for political opinions, but they can refuse to serve people for reasons such as violating ⁷

 

[Nostra]

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

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

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

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

www.usatoday.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter should and likely would lose.

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

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

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

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

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

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

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

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.

Idiotic. Of course Twitter is a private company. Companies like Twitter are not public just because they're on the Internet. That's like saying McDonald's is a public company because they're on public roads.

So McDonalds can refuse to serve anyone who has a different political opinion than they do? They are “private”, using your definition.

No, but then you're an idiot if you think Impeached Trump was banned from Twitter over his political opinion and not for violating their terms of service and inciting violence.

not for political opinions, but they can refuse to serve people for reasons such as violating ⁷

Did twitter ban that lefty hack “comedian” who held up a severed head of Trump?

Nope.

You lose again, Fawnboi.