Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[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

So, If McDonalds puts in their terms of service: “If you support Dimwingers, we reserve the right to not serve you” you agree they can refuse that service.

Got it.

 

[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

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

Nope.

You lose again, Fawnboi.

LOLOL

It's adorable how you claim victory after getting your ass kicked. Unlike Impeached Trump, Griffin didn't incite any violence. But keep lying to yourself that Impeached Trump was banned because he posted a political opinion.

 

[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

So, If McDonalds puts in their terms of service: “If you support Dimwingers, we reserve the right to not serve you” you agree they can refuse that service.

Got it.

I agree you're a moron.

 

[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.

LOLOL

It's adorable how you claim victory after getting your ass kicked. Unlike Impeached Trump, Griffin didn't incite any violence. But keep lying to yourself that Impeached Trump was banned because he posted a political opinion.

Lets hear Trump inciting violence, Halfwit.

lemme guess, if Trump held up the severed head of Pedo Joe you would be the first to say there was nothing violent about it, right?

You lose again, Simpleton.

 

[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

So, If McDonalds puts in their terms of service: “If you support Dimwingers, we reserve the right to not serve you” you agree they can refuse that service.

Got it.

I agree you're a moron.

That’s the best dodge you can come up with?

sad.

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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

www.usatoday.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter should and likely would lose.

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

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

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

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

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

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

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

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.

Legally, in terms of federal protections? Yes.

Political beliefs aren't a protected class.

Which is only your first problem. As Trump was banned for TOS violations. So you're stuck at square -1. As the scenario you imagined didn't happen. And even if it had, there's nothing in the law to prevent it.

 

[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.

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.

Nope. As Trump has no 'right' to the use of someone else's private property. You can't harm a 'right' that doesn't exist.

Trump violated the Twitter TOS and was banned. And since Trump agreed to abide the terms of that TOS, he's got no particular recourse.

 

[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.

Legally, in terms of federal protections? Yes.

Political beliefs aren't a protected class.

Which is only your first problem. As Trump was banned for TOS violations. So you're stuck at square -1. As the scenario you imagined didn't happen. And even if it had, there's nothing in the law to prevent it.

Never said they couldn’t do it, so your entire post is a waste of bandwidth.

I just exposed the flaw in supporting the idea you can pick and choose based On political beliefs.

Dont try to tell me the board Dimwingers would not piss their depends if a major company banned Dimwingers in their TOS.

 

[Skylar]

“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.

Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.

This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.

Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.

 

[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.

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 lying.
The fact the FCC is lazy and indifferent, is not at all like saying Parler would lose in court.
The laws and FCC regulations are obvious.
Political preference can not be used to censor or deny service.
That is clearly illegal, and always has been.
No democratic republic could survive if political discrimination was ever allowed, and you know it.
You are just lying when you say the occupation of congress was not within the protected realm of political expression.
In no way did the occupation "raise revolutionary armies to install dictators".
They were not armed and did not shoot anyone.
It was the police who killed all those who died.

 

[Skylar]

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

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

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

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

www.usatoday.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter should and likely would lose.

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

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

They do not get to censor based on their opinion.

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

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

That would result in a dictatorship of the worst kind.

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

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.

Legally, in terms of federal protections? Yes.

Political beliefs aren't a protected class.

Which is only your first problem. As Trump was banned for TOS violations. So you're stuck at square -1. As the scenario you imagined didn't happen. And even if it had, there's nothing in the law to prevent it.

Never said they couldn’t do it, so your entire post is a waste of bandwidth.

I just exposed the flaw in supporting the idea you can pick and choose based On political beliefs.

Dont try to tell me the board Dimwingers would not piss their depends if a major company banned Dimwingers in their TOS.

Your 'flaw' was merely your own misunderstanding of protected classes under Federal law. Race is a protected class. Religion is a protected class. Political belief is not.

Nor is LGBT, which is why they can be disriminated against in some states. The laws protecting LGBT folks from discrimination from businessses are State laws. Not federal ones.

All of which is moot regarding Trump....as he was banned for violating the Twitter POS. Says who? Says the only authoritative arbiter of TOS violations under Twitter's terms of service.

Twitter.

 

[Skylar]

You are lying.
The fact the FCC is lazy and indifferent, is not at all like saying Parler would lose in court.
The laws and FCC regulations are obvious.

Says you, citing yourself. Remember, your entire argument is you insisting that your personal opinion is enforcible law that binds the US government, the Supreme Court, and any social media company to whatever you imagine.

Nope.

Back in reality, the binding agreement between Trump and Twitter is the TOS. Trump violated those TOS, and was banned for it.

 

[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.

Legally, in terms of federal protections? Yes.

Political beliefs aren't a protected class.

Which is only your first problem. As Trump was banned for TOS violations. So you're stuck at square -1. As the scenario you imagined didn't happen. And even if it had, there's nothing in the law to prevent it.

Never said they couldn’t do it, so your entire post is a waste of bandwidth.

I just exposed the flaw in supporting the idea you can pick and choose based On political beliefs.

Dont try to tell me the board Dimwingers would not piss their depends if a major company banned Dimwingers in their TOS.

Your 'flaw' was merely your own misunderstanding of protected classes under Federal law. Race is a protected class. Religion is a protected class. Political belief is not.

Nor is LGBT, which is why they can be disriminated against in some states. The laws protecting LGBT folks from discrimination from businessses are State laws. Not federal ones.

All of which is moot regarding Trump....as he was banned for violating the Twitter POS. Says who? Says the only authoritative arbiter of TOS violations under Twitter's terms of service.

Twitter.

You are truly slow.

Please go back and read my posts as many times as it takes for you to get up to speed, Dummy.

 

[Skylar]

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).

No, you don't.

You've cited employment law as why Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter. Trump isn't an employee of Twitter.

You cited federal discrimination protections as forbidding Twitter from banning Trump. There are no such federal discrimination protections for political beliefs.

You insisted that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights restrictions to every individual. It doesn't. The 14th amendment never even mentions extending such restictinos to people. You imagined it.

You cited the incorporation doctrine as the Supreme Court extending the Bill of Rights restrictions to individuals. The incorporation doctrine does no such thing. It selectively extends the Bill of Rights restictions to the States. Not to individuals.

You insisted that Twitter isn't a private company. It is.

Virtually every assertion regarding the law you've made has been pseudo-legal gibberish that demonstrates a profound ignorance of the actual law, how any of this works, or even the basic legal principles involved.

What else have you got?

 

[Skylar]

Twitter committed the greatest crime of all in a democratic republic, which is discrimination based on political beliefs.

Two problems with that theory.

First, Trump was banned for violating the TOS of twitter. There's nothing illegal about that.

Second, political belief is not a protected class. There are no federal protections forbidding discriminations based on political belief. Meaning that its not a crime. Nor 'the greastest crime of all'.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

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.

More hapless ignorance. The founders restrictions against the federal government limiting speech shows that they wanted to restrict the federal government from restricting rights. They didn't apply the Bill of Rights restrictions even to the States. Let alone restrict the people with them. Rights as described by the founders were freedom from government interference. That's it.

You don't know what you're talking about. Your pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to Trump's Twitter ban. As none of the claims you've made have anything to do with our laws, our constitution or our rights.

 

[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.

Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.

This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.

Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.

Wrong.
This board is acting under the pleasure of the federal government, and is regulated by the FCC.
There are many specific things this board and any internet provider has to maintain in order to continue to be allowed internet access.
Discrimination of any sort, especially of political expression, is absolutely forbidden.

But it goes much further than just the fact this board has agreed to and signed contract preventing discrimination along the lines of political expression.
It also simply is illegal.
Obviously if individual rights are so important that the federal, state, and municipal governments are expressly forbidden from infringement, then clearly no one else either.
For government obviously has more reason and justification than anyone else could possibly have.

A good example of how the protection of individual rights now is paramount, even without specific legislation, all one has to do is look at the SCOTUS rulings on contraceptives.
Specifically Griswold vs Connecticut.
{...

Supreme Court's Ruling
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice William Douglas, the Court decided that the state law against contraceptives violated a "zone of privacy" that was inherent in the Constitution. Notably, the Court found constitutional protection emitting from "penumbras" or shadows within several amendments to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.The "Penumbra" TheoryAlthough the Constitutional does not explicitly describe a general right to privacy, the Court found a couple's right to contraceptives stems from a "penumbra", or zone, emitting from the Bill of Rights and the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, the Court further stated that the Due Process Clause protects liberties that are "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

Under this "penumbra" theory -- which in legal terms refers to implied powers of the federal government -- the Court discussed the various "zones of privacy" which, in this case, referred to "marital privacy" between a man and a woman.

The two lone dissenters (Justice Black and Justice Stewart) disagreed with the far-stretched constitutional right to privacy, yet instead found the law to be outdated, unenforceable, and down-right silly. For example, they asked "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives?"
...}

Griswold v. Connecticut and the Right to Contraceptives - FindLaw

Griswold v. Connecticut established a constitutional right to marital privacy involving the use of contraceptives -- setting the stage for future right of privacy cases. Learn about this, and more, at FindLaw's section on Reproductive Rights.

www.findlaw.com

.

The penumbra theory is established legal fact, and has been since this 1965 ruling.
So you are WAY out of date.
All individual rights now are always protected from abuse by anyone.
There is no a single bit of legislation or mention of privacy in the constitution, and yet that is not at all necessary, since legislation and the constitution are NOT the source of individual rights. They PRE-EXIST, and are the reason we can even create government in the first place. Government does not create rights, but the other way around, where our inherent individual rights are the source of authority for being able to create government.

 

[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

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

Nope.

You lose again, Fawnboi.

LOLOL

It's adorable how you claim victory after getting your ass kicked. Unlike Impeached Trump, Griffin didn't incite any violence. But keep lying to yourself that Impeached Trump was banned because he posted a political opinion.

Lets hear Trump inciting violence, Halfwit.

lemme guess, if Trump held up the severed head of Pedo Joe you would be the first to say there was nothing violent about it, right?

You lose again, Simpleton.

Dumbfuck, I never said holding up a fake severed head didn't symbolize violence. You must have marshmallow for brains. Over and over again, you argue shit nobody said.

As far as inciting violence, here's Twitter's explanation for why they banned Impeached Trump...

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

- President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.

- The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending.

- The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.

- The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election.

- Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.​

 

[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.

LOLOL

It's adorable how you claim victory after getting your ass kicked. Unlike Impeached Trump, Griffin didn't incite any violence. But keep lying to yourself that Impeached Trump was banned because he posted a political opinion.

Lets hear Trump inciting violence, Halfwit.

lemme guess, if Trump held up the severed head of Pedo Joe you would be the first to say there was nothing violent about it, right?

You lose again, Simpleton.

Dumbfuck, I never said holding up a fake severed head didn't symbolize violence. You must have marshmallow for brains. Over and over again, you argue shit nobody said.

As far as inciting violence, here's Twitter's explanation for why they banned Impeached Trump...

Permanent suspension of @realDonaldTrump

Suspension of @realDonaldTrump

blog.twitter.com

​

President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as him disavowing his previous claim made via two Tweets (1, 2) by his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an “orderly transition” on January 20th.The second Tweet may also serve as encouragement to those potentially considering violent acts that the Inauguration would be a “safe” target, as he will not be attending. The use of the words “American Patriots” to describe some of his supporters is also being interpreted as support for those committing violent acts at the US Capitol.The mention of his supporters having a “GIANT VOICE long into the future” and that “They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” is being interpreted as further indication that President Trump does not plan to facilitate an “orderly transition” and instead that he plans to continue to support, empower, and shield those who believe he won the election. Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021.​

Dumbfuck, I never said holding up a fake severed head didn't symbolize violence.


Sure you did. You are just too stupid to keep up with your own posts.

 

[Skylar]

“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.

Nope. Your free speech rights are protected from government interference. So the State or Federal government couldn't silence you.

This board is neither. If you get banned, you're banned. There's no FCC 'but they banned me' court.

Remember, your pseudo-legal gibberish about the 14th amendment extending the Bill of Rights to individuals.....is imaginary nonsense. You made that up. And your imagination legally obligates no one to do anything.

Wrong.
This board is acting under the pleasure of the federal government, and is regulated by the FCC.
There are many specific things this board and any internet provider has to maintain in order to continue to be allowed internet access.
Discrimination of any sort, especially of political expression, is absolutely forbidden.

There are no federal protections for political belief. You've imagined them.

And the board can ban anyone that they feel is violating their terms of service. They get to decide when that happens....not you.

Same with Trump and Twitter. The binding agreement between Twitter and Trump is TOS. And the arbiter of that TOS is Twitter.

Not you.

But it goes much further than just the fact this board has agreed to and signed contract preventing discrimination along the lines of political expression.
It also simply is illegal.
Obviously if individual rights are so important that the federal, state, and municipal governments are expressly forbidden from infringement, then clearly no one else either.
For government obviously has more reason and justification than anyone else could possibly have.

A good example of how the protection of individual rights now is paramount, even without specific legislation, all one has to do is look at the SCOTUS rulings on contraceptives.
Specifically Griswold vs Connecticut.
{...

Your interpretation of the 'penumbra' theory is that anything you imagine is law.

That's not how Griswold v. Connecticut worked. Your imagination didn't suddenly become a legal authority in Griswold. Nor did it extend the Bill of Rights to individuals, but was instead a limiting of STATE power over an individual.

Your insistence that the 14th amendment extended the restrictions of the Bill of Rights to individuals.......is your own pseudo-legal gibberish. It has never been recognized by the Supreme Court, isn't part of the selective incorporation doctrine, and is never mentioned in the 14th amendment.

The 14th amendment extends the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the STATE. As demonstrated by Griswold v. Connecticut.....in which Connecticut was restricted when acting against a citizen of its State.

Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about. Not even the basics of the legal principles you're trying to discuss.

Is this really it? Just you making up pseudo-legal gibberish and imagining your person opinion as the law of the land? If so, that was easy.

 

[Rigby5]

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).

No, you don't.

You've cited employment law as why Trump couldn't be banned from Twitter. Trump isn't an employee of Twitter.

You cited federal discrimination protections as forbidding Twitter from banning Trump. There are no such federal discrimination protections for political beliefs.

You insisted that the 14th amendment extends the bill of rights restrictions to every individual. It doesn't. The 14th amendment never even mentions extending such restictinos to people. You imagined it.

You cited the incorporation doctrine as the Supreme Court extending the Bill of Rights restrictions to individuals. The incorporation doctrine does no such thing. It selectively extends the Bill of Rights restictions to the States. Not to individuals.

You insisted that Twitter isn't a private company. It is.

Virtually every assertion regarding the law you've made has been pseudo-legal gibberish that demonstrates a profound ignorance of the actual law, how any of this works, or even the basic legal principles involved.

What else have you got?

Totally wrong.
I never cited employment laws, and actually political discrimination is allowed over employment is you employ fewer than 5 people.

There most certainly are federal laws and regulations prosecuting political discrimination over any broadcast communications under FCC jurisdiction, like the internet.

The 14th amendment does not have to mention extending individual rights protections from other individuals.
That obviously was the intent of the 14th amendment and the result once non-governmental groups like the KKK were the ones abusing rights.
How could government ever be prohibited from abusing individual rights unless everyone else was also prohibited?

And you are lying when you said I claimed Twitter is not a private company. What I really said is that Twitter does not own or run any of the internet, and in order to be allowed to use the internet, Twitter has to agree to regulations that prevented ANY political discrimination.

You clearly misunderstood everything you have read, and have ZERO understanding of law.
You really should stop spreading illegal misinformation about what you obviously know NOTHING at all about.