Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears

[Hellokitty]

You can't sue anybody for not letting you post to their forum. It's no different than USMB who removes posts or kills them.

Twitter is a private company and has plenty of competition, so it's not really a monopoly. They can allow or disallow anybody they desire for any reason they desire. This suit will be a complete waste of money for them.

The National Enquire is a private company as well, but that isn't stopping democrats from tying to go after Pecker for buying stories to not publish.

Apples to oranges...The NE publishes their own stories...twitter allows other people to post using their software.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

You can't sue anybody for not letting you post to their forum. It's no different than USMB who removes posts or kills them.

Twitter is a private company and has plenty of competition, so it's not really a monopoly. They can allow or disallow anybody they desire for any reason they desire. This suit will be a complete waste of money for them.

The National Enquire is a private company as well, but that isn't stopping democrats from tying to go after Pecker for buying stories to not publish.

Different situation. Campaign finance laws have very real consequences. Of which first amendment protections do not shield you from.

Pecker wasn't running for any elected office.

 

[Dragonlady]

And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears​

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.

"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content." ​

Nunez is upset at Twitter users mocking him with fake accounts, like Devon Nunes Mom, and Devon Nunes Cow.

Devon Nunes Cow account has added over 300,000 followers since Nunes filed his lawsuit.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If Nunes wins his suit and is successful in his case, that will open up a whole 'nother can of worms.

It might even mean that Trump can be held accountable for all the people he's insulted on Twitter.

 

[BlindBoo]

Anyone notice that this action by Nunes coincided with more Trump tweets threatening FaceBook this time?

Seems this the GOP strategy for 2020, attack the 1st amendment

It's not like the Democrats think any differently. Not long ago they were talking about re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine. Recently the DNC forbade Fox from hosting any of the Democrat primaries.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to stations who broadcast across public airwaves and never covered other forms of media like newspapers and magazines. Just Radio and Television. It died before the Internet. It made sense at the time. With the West's eclectic options for news, it no longer does.

Case gets thrown out.

Thrown out by whom? It was the law of the land until Reagan got rid of it. Doesn't mean the Democrats can't bring it back if they ever get full power of the government again.

By the judge. Publicly licensed stations can now broadcast a single political perspective 24/7, period. They do not have to give the other side a second of air time. Messaging platforms were never covered by the doctrine and they have never has such an obligation. If the Democrat wanted to, they could have, they just had full power too. It was just a rule, not a law. Somebody with some sense got a hold of Obama, because in today's communication-centric world it is out dated. All you have to do is change the channel to get a different perspective.

Sounds to me like old cry-baby Nunes wants us to bring it back, just for him.

 

[bripat9643]

Anyone notice that this action by Nunes coincided with more Trump tweets threatening FaceBook this time?

Seems this the GOP strategy for 2020, attack the 1st amendment

It's not like the Democrats think any differently. Not long ago they were talking about re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine. Recently the DNC forbade Fox from hosting any of the Democrat primaries.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to stations who broadcast across public airwaves and never covered other forms of media like newspapers and magazines. Just Radio and Television. It died before the Internet. It made sense at the time. With the West's eclectic options for news, it no longer does.

Case gets thrown out.

Thrown out by whom? It was the law of the land until Reagan got rid of it. Doesn't mean the Democrats can't bring it back if they ever get full power of the government again.

By the judge. Publicly licensed stations can now broadcast a single political perspective 24/7, period. They do not have to give the other side a second of air time. Messaging platforms were never covered by the doctrine and they have never has such an obligation. If the Democrat wanted to, they could have, they just had full power too. It was just a rule, not a law. Somebody with some sense got a hold of Obama, because in today's communication-centric world it is out dated. All you have to do is change the channel to get a different perspective.

Sounds to me like old cry-baby Nunes wants us to bring it back, just for him.

There's a difference between radio stations and facebook. There are thousands of radio stations. There's only one Facebook. It's a monopoly. Radio stations also don't pretend that they are common carriers. Facebook does.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Anyone notice that this action by Nunes coincided with more Trump tweets threatening FaceBook this time?

Seems this the GOP strategy for 2020, attack the 1st amendment

It's not like the Democrats think any differently. Not long ago they were talking about re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine. Recently the DNC forbade Fox from hosting any of the Democrat primaries.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to stations who broadcast across public airwaves and never covered other forms of media like newspapers and magazines. Just Radio and Television. It died before the Internet. It made sense at the time. With the West's eclectic options for news, it no longer does.

Case gets thrown out.

Thrown out by whom? It was the law of the land until Reagan got rid of it. Doesn't mean the Democrats can't bring it back if they ever get full power of the government again.

By the judge. Publicly licensed stations can now broadcast a single political perspective 24/7, period. They do not have to give the other side a second of air time. Messaging platforms were never covered by the doctrine and they have never has such an obligation. If the Democrat wanted to, they could have, they just had full power too. It was just a rule, not a law. Somebody with some sense got a hold of Obama, because in today's communication-centric world it is out dated. All you have to do is change the channel to get a different perspective.

Sounds to me like old cry-baby Nunes wants us to bring it back, just for him.

There's a difference between radio stations and facebook. There are thousands of radio stations. There's only one Facebook. It's a monopoly. Radio stations also don't pretend that they are common carriers. Facebook does.

facebook is just a website not that different than this one...there are thousands and thousands of them out there

 

[BlindBoo]

Anyone notice that this action by Nunes coincided with more Trump tweets threatening FaceBook this time?

Seems this the GOP strategy for 2020, attack the 1st amendment

It's not like the Democrats think any differently. Not long ago they were talking about re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine. Recently the DNC forbade Fox from hosting any of the Democrat primaries.

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to stations who broadcast across public airwaves and never covered other forms of media like newspapers and magazines. Just Radio and Television. It died before the Internet. It made sense at the time. With the West's eclectic options for news, it no longer does.

Case gets thrown out.

Thrown out by whom? It was the law of the land until Reagan got rid of it. Doesn't mean the Democrats can't bring it back if they ever get full power of the government again.

By the judge. Publicly licensed stations can now broadcast a single political perspective 24/7, period. They do not have to give the other side a second of air time. Messaging platforms were never covered by the doctrine and they have never has such an obligation. If the Democrat wanted to, they could have, they just had full power too. It was just a rule, not a law. Somebody with some sense got a hold of Obama, because in today's communication-centric world it is out dated. All you have to do is change the channel to get a different perspective.

Sounds to me like old cry-baby Nunes wants us to bring it back, just for him.

There's a difference between radio stations and facebook. There are thousands of radio stations. There's only one Facebook. It's a monopoly. Radio stations also don't pretend that they are common carriers. Facebook does.

True. You have to be licensed to broadcast on public airwaves regardless if your are a radio or a television station. I believe that includes something about being a public service. There is no license requirement to create and publish a website on the World Wide Web. Broadcast stations use to be subject to the Fairness Doctrine. Newspapers and print media were not. Is Facebook a printed media or is it broadcast media?

No, the Doctrine should remain dead.

 

[basquebromance]

We have an over abundance of stupid, greedy, lying white republican men in our country and in our government. Come on Cali, kick this traitor to the curb

 

[mdk]

 

[hazlnut]

And it begins. I predict this will be just the first of a flood of lawsuits against these internet media companies. They brought it on themselves.

Nunes sues Twitter, some users, seeks over $250M alleging anti-conservative 'shadow bans,' smears​

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes filed a major lawsuit seeking $250 million in compensatory damages and $350,000 in punitive damages against Twitter and a handful of its users on Monday, accusing the social media site of "shadow-banning conservatives" including himself to influence the 2018 elections, systematically censoring opposing viewpoints and totally "ignoring" lawful complaints of repeated abusive behavior.

In a complaint filed in Virginia state court on Monday, obtained by Fox News, Nunes said Twitter was guilty of "knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory – providing both a voice and financial incentive to the defamers – thereby facilitating defamation on its platform."

Although federal law ordinarily exempts services like Twitter from defamation liability, Nunes' suit said the platform has taken such an active role in curating and banning content that it should face liability like any other organization that defames.

"Twitter created and developed the content at issue in this case by transforming false accusations of criminal conduct, imputed wrongdoing, dishonesty and lack of integrity into a publicly available commodity used by unscrupulous political operatives and their donor/clients as a weapon," Nunes' legal team wrote. "Twitter is 'responsible' for the development of offensive content on its platform because it in some way specifically encourages development of what is offensive about the content." ​

Now they have more followers than that shitheal loser Nunez —- lol lollipops lolololololl

 

[hazlnut]

Full text of the complaint

Excerpt from the Linkedin page of Liz Mair, one of the defendants:

"Mair Strategies is a boutique online, strategic, crisis and political communications firm with deep expertise in opposition research development, formulation and seeding.

We anonymously smear our clients' opponents on the Internet.

We get sh*t done."

Nunes is going to win this case, big time.

He is already being laughed outta court.

 

[McRocket]

'Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., filed a $250 million lawsuit earlier this week against Twitter and a number of parody accounts that poked fun at the congressman, a fierce defender of President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit named several of the spoof accounts and well, yeah, things turned out just about the way one would think. Twitter users started immediately following the accounts listed in the lawsuit, notably one account dedicated to Nunes' cow.

Two days after the lawsuit was filed Monday, @DevinCow, which had less than 2,000 followers, now boasts a following of nearly half a million on Twitter. The massive follower count, which stood at 454,000 as of Wednesday afternoon, even surpassed Nunes' account and its 395,000 followers.'

Nunes...what a friggin' idiot and a baby.

This is just going to make sites against him FAR more popular.

Hell, I just subscribed to it.

 

[basquebromance]

Why Is Devin Nunes Really Suing Over Twitter Parody Accounts?

 

[P@triot]

I hate fake conservatives. These people claim they don’t want government interfering in their lives or the market - but then they run to government to control private industry the moment a company does something they don’t like. Twitter has every right to “shadow ban” anyone they want for any reason. It’s their damn company. It’s their damn platform. You don’t like it, Nunes? Create your own social media platform.

Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Twitter for $250 Million

 

[Toronado3800]

I hate fake conservatives. These people claim they don’t want government interfering in their lives or the market - but then they run to government to control private industry the moment a company does something they don’t like. Twitter has every right to “shadow ban” anyone they want for any reason. It’s their damn company. It’s their damn platform. You don’t like it, Nunes? Create your own social media platform.

Rep. Devin Nunes Sues Twitter for $250 Million

yeah, the fake conservative thing has been going on for some time.

I'll say its tougher to be a conservative. Its a stricter ideology.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why, because he exposes deep state criminals and Dim criminals?

No, because he's a Trump kiss-ass who's helping The Donald destroy the rule of law in this country. He's also a fuckin' liar!

 

[P@triot]

Can't go anywhere, Twitter is a private company and can refuse service to whomever they please.

Hahahahaha! This from the asshole who claims that people don’t have the right to refuse gay couples.

 

[P@triot]

can't wait until that's declared about guns & mass shootings...

Good luck with that.

There is 0 chance that will ever happen. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms - and that trumps the powers of any “national emergency”. The United States military would immediately turn on any administration that tried that. And not a single firearm owner would comply.

 

[P@triot]

The Donald destroy the rule of law in this country. He's also a fuckin' liar!

The Dumbocrats destroyed the rule of law and you know it. It was MaObama who proudly declared “if Congress won’t act, I have a phone and a pen”. The Donald has restored the rule of law in this country. Amazing that that pisses you off.

 

[P@triot]

"But Twitter is free." Not really. I'm giving them access to my data, which they are (trying to) monetize. That's 'consideration' (as lawyers say) in the New Economy! And-if they shadowban-they've obtained it on questionable pretenses, no?

i'm sure you sign off on their TOS without even reading it. oh well....

Their ToS doesn’t say they will “shadow-ban” users. Dumb ass.